Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:32:46.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Access to Spine Care: A Tale of Two Cities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

R. John Hurlbert ,
Ralph Mobbs  and
Charles Teo
R. John Hurlbert
Affiliation:
University of Calgary Spine Program and Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Foothills Hospital and Medical Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada
Ralph Mobbs
Affiliation:
Prince of Wales Public and Private Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
Charles Teo
Affiliation:
Prince of Wales Public and Private Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction:

As governments struggle with increasing demand for accountability within the Canadian Health Care System and set wait-time standards, it is important to objectify data to allow a true understanding of present limitations and to facilitate comparisons to other systems. The purpose of this study was to compare wait list times for a cohort of patients requiring spinal surgery in Calgary, Alberta to a similar cohort in Sydney, Australia.

Methods:

From January 1 until June 30, 2006 all outpatients admitted for spinal surgery to the Foothills Hospital were identified by the surgeons’ office. Two time periods were quantified from their charts: (1) time from referral to surgical consultation; and (2) time from surgical consultation to operative intervention. From July 1 until December 31, 2006 patients were similarly identified through Neurosurgical offices at the Prince of Wales Public and Private Hospitals in Sydney, Australia.

Results:

Four hundred ninety-one surgical patients were captured during the six month period in Calgary and 155 patients during the subsequent six months in Sydney. The majority of patients in Sydney were treated in the Private Health Care system. Public patients in Sydney have access to a surgical consultant twice as fast as public patients in Calgary while private patients have access ten times faster. Access to operating room time within the public system is a rate limiting step in both countries. However, Sydney private patients receive their surgery four times faster than Calgary patients.

Conclusions:

Compared to Calgary, access to specialized spine care in Sydney appears more efficient not only in the Private but also the Public Health Care System. Part of this efficiency may arise from offloading from the public into the private system. Solutions proposed to reduce wait list times should consider benefits of a Private Health Care System.

résumé:

<span class='bold'>RÉSUMÉ:</span> <span class='bold'> <span class='italic'>Introduction:</span></span>

Les gouvernements font face à des demandes de plus en plus pressantes de reddition de compte en ce qui concerne le système de santé canadien et des standards de temps d’attente fixes. Il est donc important d’avoir des données objectives pour une bonne compréhension des limites actuelles et pour faciliter les comparaisons à d’autres systèmes. Le but de cette etude était de comparer les temps d’attente de patients qui ont besoin d’une chirurgie spinale à Calgary, en Alberta, à une cohorte similaire à Sydney, en Australie.

<span class='bold'> <span class='italic'>Méthodes:</span></span>

Tous les patients externes admis pour une chirurgie spinale au Foothills Hospital entre le 1er janvier et le 30 juin 2006 ont été identifiés par le bureau du chirurgien. À partir de leurs dossiers, nous avonséterminé : 1) l’intervalle entre la demande de consultation en chirurgie et le moment de la consultation; 2) l’intervalle entre la consultation et la chirurgie. Entre le 1er juillet et le 31écembre 2006, nous avons obtenu des données identiques de bureaux de neurochirurgiens au Prince of Wales Public Hospital et au Prince of Wales Private Hospital de Sydney, en Australie.

<span class='bold'> <span class='italic'>Résultats:</span></span>

Quatre cent quatre-vingt-dix patients ont été recensés à Calgary pendant la première période de six mois et 155 patients à Sydney pendant les six mois suivants. La majorité des patients de Sydney ont été traités dans le système de santé privé. Les patients du système public à Sydney ont accès à un consultant deux fois plus rapidement que les patients du système public à Calgary, alors que les patients duystème privé ont accès dix fois plus rapidement. L’accès au temps opératoire dans le système public est une étape limitante dans les deux pays. Cependant les patients du système privé à Sydney ont leur chirurgie quatre fois plus rapidement que les patients de Calgary.

<span class='bold'> <span class='italic'>Résultats:</span></span>Conclusions:

L’accès aux soins spinaux spécialisés à Sydney semble plus efficient qu’à Calgary, non seulement dans le système de santé privé mais aussi dans le système public. Cette efficience peut être due en partie à une décharge du système de santé public vers le système privé. Les solutions proposées pour réduire le temps d’attente devraient considérer les benefices d’un système de santé privé.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 308 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2008

References

1. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta Medical Directory. Published by the Council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Province of Alberta, 2006: 235–41.Google Scholar
2. Alberta Finance Census of Canada, Population & Dwelling Release 2006. Available from: www.finance.gov.ab.ca/aboutalberta/census/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
3. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Annual Report 2006. Available from: www.surgeons.org/Content/NavigationMenu/WhoWeAre/ReportsandPublications/Publications/2006_annual_report.pdfGoogle Scholar
4. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006. www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATSGoogle Scholar
5. Comeau, P. Wait time benchmarks fall short (letter to the editor). CMAJ. 2006;174(3):299–300.Google Scholar
6. Conner-Spady, B, Estey, A, Arnett, G, Ness, K, McGurran, J, Bear, R, et al and the Steering Committee of the Western Canada Waiting List Project. Determinants of patient and surgeon perspectives on maximum acceptable waiting times for hip and knee arthroplasty. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(2):84–90.Google Scholar
7. Eggerston, L. Wait time alliance first to set benchmarks (letter to the editor). CMAJ 2005;172(10):1277.Google Scholar
8. Noseworthy, T, McGurran, J. Top priority. Can Healthcare Manager (chmonline. ca). 2004; October:43–5.Google Scholar
9. Pitt, DF, Noseworthy, TW, Guilbert, J, Williams, JR. Waiting lists: management, legalities, and ethics. Can J Surg. 2006;46(3):170–5.Google Scholar
10. Taylor, MC, Hadorn, DC, and the Steering Committee of the Western Canada Waiting List Project. Developing priority criteria for general surgery: results from the Western Canada Waiting List Project. Can J Surg. 2002;45(5):351–7.Google Scholar
11. Time’s Up! Achieving meaningful reductions in wait times. Progress Report by the Wait Time Alliance for Timely Access to Health Care. Canadian Medical Association, April 2007.Google Scholar
12. Webster, P. National wait time standards remain elusive (letter to the editor). CMAJ. 2005;173(11):1308–9.Google Scholar
13. Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Judicial Centre of Calgary 2006; Aug: Action No. 0601-09319.Google Scholar
14. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2007. Australian Hospital Statistics 2005-06.Google Scholar
15. Pollard, L, Metherell, M. The private life of health care. Sydney Morning Herald 06/04/2007. Available from: www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-private-life-of-health-care/2007/04/05Google Scholar