Validation of priority criteria for cataract extraction

Gutiérrez, Susana García; Quintana, José M.; Bilbao, Amaia; Escobar, Antonio; Milla, Emilio Perea; Elizalde, Belén; Baré, Marisa; D., Nerea Fernandez de Larrea M.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01083.x

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The four steps included: 1) systematic review to gather available evidence about waiting list problems and prioritization criteria used, 2) compilation of clinical scenarios, 3) expert panel consultations provided with the literature review and the list of scenarios, 4) rating of the scenarios and criteria weighting, carried out in two rounds using a modi ed Delphi method. The researchers then evaluated the reliability of the tool in the context of hip and knee surgeries (21,38,55) as well as its validity for cataract surgeries (21,37,41,56) and these results are detailed in Additional le 4.…”

Section: Spainmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inter-rater (21-24, 33, 38, 40, 42, 45, 47, 50, 55, 57, 61, 65) and intra-rater (22,24,33,40,42,47,55,57,61) reliability were evaluated by comparing the priority ratings of two groups of raters (inter) and by comparing priority ratings by the same raters at two different points in time (intra). Face validity (33,38,41,47,52,55) was determined by consultation with stakeholders (e.g. surgeons, clinicians, patients, etc.).…”

Section: Reliability and Validity Of Pptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…surgeons, clinicians, patients, etc.). Other validity assessments, such as content (41,47,55), construct (21, 23, 26, 27, 30-32, 34, 35, 37, 52, 63), and criterion (26,32,35,41,45,47,52,55) validity were appraised using correlations between PPT results and other measures. In fact, some studies compared PPT scores with a generic health-related quality of life measure such as the Short Form Health Survey (both SF-36 or SF-12) (35,55,63).…”

Section: Reliability and Validity Of Pptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of patient prioritization tools in non-emergency healthcare services

Déry

Ruíz

Routhier

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Patient prioritization is a strategy used to manage access to healthcare services. Patient prioritization tools (PPT) contribute to supporting the prioritization decision process, and to its transparency and fairness. Patient prioritization tools can take various forms and are highly dependent on the particular context of application. Consequently, the sets of criteria change from one context to another, especially when used in non-emergency settings. This paper systematically synthesizes and analyzes the published evidence concerning the development and challenges related to the validation and implementation of PPTs in non-emergency settings.Methods. We conducted a systematic mixed studies review. We searched evidence in five databases to select articles based on eligibility criteria, and information of included articles was extracted using an extraction grid. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The article selection process, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed by at least two reviewers independently.Results. We included 48 studies listing 34 different patient prioritization tools. Most of them are designed for managing access to elective surgeries in hospital settings. Two thirds of the tools were investigated based on reliability or validity. Inconclusive results were found regarding the impact of PPTs on patient waiting times. Advantages associated with PPT use were found mostly in relationship to acceptability of the tools by clinicians and increased transparency and equity for patients.Conclusions. This review describes the development and validation processes of PPTs used in non-urgent healthcare settings. Despite the large number of PPTs studied, implementation into clinical practice seems to be an open challenge. Based on the findings of this review, recommendations are proposed to develop, validate, and implement such tools in clinical settings.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018107205

show abstract

Section: Spainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reliability and Validity Of Pptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reliability and Validity Of Pptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of patient prioritization tools in non-emergency healthcare services

Déry

Ruíz

Routhier

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A Spanish study took aim at strategizing and prioritizing cataract surgery. Gutié rrez et al [15,16] validated a previously developed priority scoring system for timely access of cataract surgery in terms of clinical variables, potential gain in visual acuity, and related quality-of-life factors. They concluded that the use of a scoring tool could provide a more fair and rational way to prioritize patients for cataract extraction and therefore better meet subjective patient perception of waiting for cataract surgery [17].…”

Section: Recent Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of waiting for cataract surgery

Gimbel

Dardzhikova

2011

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These tools aim to manage access to care by ranking patients equitably and rigorously in waiting lists based on criteria, so that those with urgent needs receive services before those with less urgent needs [1,4]. Patient prioritization, as a waiting list management strategy, has been studied in a wide variety of clinical health services, such as orthopaedic surgery [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12], varicose vein surgery [13], cataract surgery [8,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], cardiac surgery [22,23], psychotherapy services [24], and other mental health services [25][26][27][28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers and Facilitators for Implementation of a Patient Prioritization Tool in Rehabilitation Settings

Déry¹,

Ruiz²,

Routhier³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. Prioritization tools aim to manage access to care by ranking patients equitably in waiting list based on determined criteria. Patient prioritization has been studied in a wide variety of clinical health services, including rehabilitation contexts. We created a web-based patient prioritization tool with the participation of stakeholders in two rehabilitation programs, which we aim to implement into clinical practice. Successful implementation of such innovation can be influenced by a variety of determinants. The goal of this study was to explore facilitators and barriers to the implementation of a patient prioritization tool in rehabilitation programs.Methods. We used two questionnaires and conducted two focus groups among service providers from two rehabilitation programs. We used descriptive statistics to report results of the questionnaires and qualitative content analysis based on Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.Results. Key facilitators are the flexibility and relative advantage of the tool to improve clinical practices and produce beneficial outcomes on patients. Main barriers are the lack of training, financial support and human resources to sustain the implementation process.Conclusion. This is the first study that highlights organizational, individual and innovation levels facilitators and barriers for the implementation of a prioritization tool from service providers’ perspective.Contributions to the literatureMethods used in this study could be operationalized in future studies to investigate barriers and facilitators of the implementation of an innovative intervention in rehabilitation settings.We used a well-known implementation framework (CFIR) to classified the determinants of the implementation, which could help to compare the results with other similar studies in implementation science.The barriers and facilitators identified in this study are an important first step in the implementation process of a patient prioritization tool in rehabilitation programs.

show abstract

Validation of priority criteria for cataract extraction

Abstract: The priority score we developed identified patients most likely to experience the greatest improvements from cataract extraction. Use of this tool could provide a fairer and more rational way to prioritize patients for cataract extraction.

Cited by 14 publications

References 31 publications

A systematic review of patient prioritization tools in non-emergency healthcare services

A systematic review of patient prioritization tools in non-emergency healthcare services

Consequences of waiting for cataract surgery

Barriers and Facilitators for Implementation of a Patient Prioritization Tool in Rehabilitation Settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About