Waiting lists for elective procedures are a characteristic feature of tax-funded universal health systems. New Zealand has gained a reputation for its ‘booking system’ for waiting list management, introduced in the early-1990s. The New Zealand system uses criteria to ‘score’ and then ‘book’ qualifying patients for surgery. This article aims to (i) describe key issues focused on by the media, (ii) identify local strategies and (iii) present evidence of variation. Newspaper sources were searched (2000–2006). A total of 1199 booking system stories were identified. Findings demonstrate, from a national system perspective, the extraordinarily difficult nature of maintaining overall control and coordination. Equity and national consistency are affected when hospitals respond to local pressure by reducing access to elective treatment. Findings suggest that central government probably needs to be closely involved in local-level management and policy adjustments; that through the study period, the New Zealand system appears to have been largely out of the control of government; and that governments elsewhere may need to be cautious when considering developing similar systems. Developing and implementing scoring and booking systems may always be a ‘messy reality’ with unintended consequences and throwing regional differences in service management and access into stark relief. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background To identify whether compliance with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations is associated with length of stay (LOS) in a New Zealand hospital for patients undergoing segmental colectomy in mixed acute and elective general surgery wards. Methods Consecutive elective colorectal surgeries (n = 770) between October 2012 and February 2019 were audited. Patients with non-segmental colectomies, multi-organ surgeries, LOS > 14 days, and those who died were excluded. Logistic regression was used to determine the relationship between patient demographics, compliance with ERAS guidelines, and suboptimal LOS (> 4 days). Results Analysis included 376 patients. Age, surgery prior to 2014, surgical approach, non-colorectal surgical team, operation type, and complications were significantly associated with suboptimal LOS. Non-compliance with ERAS recommendations for laparoscopy [OR 8.9, 95% CI (4.52, 19.67)], removal of indwelling catheters (IDC) [OR 3.14, 95% CI (1.85, 5.51)], use of abdominal drains [OR 4.27, 95% CI (0.99, 18.35)], and removal of PCA [OR 8.71, 95% CI (1.78, 157.27)], were associated with suboptimal LOS (univariable analysis). Multivariable analysis showed that age, surgical team, late removal of IDC, and open approach were independent predictors of suboptimal LOS. Conclusions Non-compliance with ERAS guidelines for laparoscopic approach and early removal of IDC was higher among procedures performed by non-colorectal surgery teams, and was also associated with adverse postoperative events and suboptimal LOS. This study demonstrates the importance of the surgical team’s expertise in affecting surgical outcomes, and did not find significant independent associations between most individual ERAS guidelines and suboptimal LOS once adjusting for other factors.

Objectives To determine whether exempting people (with high health needs and living in areas of high deprivation) from a $5 prescription charge reduces hospital use. Design Two-group parallel prospective randomised controlled trial. Setting People living in the community in various regions of New Zealand. Participants One thousand sixty one people who lived in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation, and either took medicines for diabetes, took antipsychotic medicines, or had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Of the 1053 who completed the study, just under half (49%) were Māori. Interventions Participants were individually randomized (1–1 ratio) to either be exempted from the standard $5 charge per prescription item for one year (2019–2020) (n = 591) or usual care (n = 469). Those in the intervention group did not pay the standard NZ$5 charge, and pharmacies billed the study for these. Participants continued to pay any other costs for prescription medicines. Those in the control group continued to pay all prescription charges for the year although they may have received one-off assistance from other agencies. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was length of stay (hospital bed-days). Secondary outcomes presented in this paper included: all-cause hospitalisations, hospitalisations for diabetes/mental health problems/COPD, deaths, and emergency department visits. Results The trial was under-powered because the recruitment target was not met. There was no statistically significant reduction in the primary outcome, hospital bed-days (IRR = 0.68, CI: 0.54 to 1.05). Participants in the intervention group were significantly less likely to be hospitalised during the study year than those in the control group (OR = 0.70, CI: 0.54 to 0.90). There were statistically significant reductions in the number of hospital admissions for mental health problems (IRR = 0.39, CI: 0.17 to 0.92), the number of admissions for COPD (IRR = 0.37, CI: 0.16 to 0.85), and length of stay for COPD (IRR 0.20, CI: 0.07 to 0.60). Apart from all-cause mortality and diabetes length of stay, all measures were better for the intervention group than the control group. Conclusions Eliminating a small co-payment appears to have had a substantial effect on patients’ risk of being hospitalised. Given the small amount of revenue gathered from the charges, and the comparative large costs of hospitalisations, the results suggest that these charges are likely to increase the overall cost of healthcare, as well as exacerbate ethnic inequalities. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12618001486213 registered on 04/09/2018.

No abstract