Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:36:46.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Priority Classification of Patients According to a Modified ‘Norwegian Model’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Alexander H. W. van Assendelft
Alexander H. W. van Assendelft
Affiliation:
Kymenlaakso Central Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A priority classification was evaluated according to a modified “Norwegian model.” Many diseases do not belong to any specific priority category based only on the diagnosis. The classification also depends on the condition's type, site, and phase as well as the patient's age and overall condition. Savings cannot be achieved by the model used because 89% of the patients belonged to the priority categories I–III, the care of which can be classified as necessary.

Type
Research Notes
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , Spring 1996 , pp. 395 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Callahan, D.Rationing medical progress: The way to affordable health care. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 322, 1810–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Eddy, D. M.Connecting value and costs: Whom do we ask, and what do we ask them? Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 264, 1737–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Eddy, D. M.Rationing by patient choice. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1991, 265, 105–08.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Grimes, D. A.Technology follies: The uncritical acceptance of medical innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1993, 269, 3030–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Lundberg, G. D.American health care system management objectives: The aura of inevitability becomes incarnate. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1993, 269, 2554–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Prioritization of health services: A report to the governor and legislature: List of physical health services of 04 19, 1993. Oregon Health Services Commission, 1993.Google Scholar
7.Research and effective health care (editorial). Lancet, 1993, 342, 64–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Retningslinier for prioriteringar innen norsk helsetjeneste. Norges Offentlige Utredningen, 1987, 15, 128–36.Google Scholar
9.Sabin, J. E.‘Mind the gap’: Reflections of an American health maintenance organisation doctor on the new NHS. British Medical Journal, 1992, 305, 514–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Schuster, D. P.Everything that should be done, not everything that can be done. American Review of Respiratory Diseases, 1992, 145, 508–09.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Singer, P. A., & Lowy, F. H.Rationing, patient preferences, and cost of care at the end of life. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1992, 152, 478–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Thorling, J., Paperin, A., Ahlmark, G., et al. Ett konkret förslag till prioritering. Läkartidningen, 1990, 87, 3256–58.Google Scholar
13.Wennberg, J. E.Outcomes research, cost containment, and the fear of health care rationing. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 323, 1202–04.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed