Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Short waiting periods for all patients referred to a pain clinic is desirable but ordinarily not possible. In a questionnaire, 25% of the Swedish anaesthetic pain clinics reported a waiting list exceeding 6 months. The long waiting-time shows that some kind of priority setting is necessary. The aim of the present investigation was to study the feasibility of a rational priority setting based on a ranking procedure. Secretary and nurse priority ranked patients according to a system utilizing the physicians's referral and a questionnaire completed by the patient. These priority ratings were compared to the final ranking by the doctor which was done after an interview without access to the questionnaire. The results of the present investigation show that the secretary as well as two nurses generally ‘overestimated’ the patients' pain problems compared with the priority made by the doctor. However, 12 out of 142 patients' problems were ‘underestimated’ but this was deemed to increase risk in only one case. The possible risks with a delegated ranking procedure have, however, to be judged against the disadvantages of no priority setting at all and the advantages of a rational use of staff members. This experiment has indicated the feasibility of a delegated ranking procedure.

Keywords

pain clinic priority setting delegation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

West

McKibbin

Shortening waiting lists in orthopaedic surgery outpatient clinics. Br Med J 1982; 284:728–30.

Ross

Davis

Horn

Williams

General practice orthopaedic outpatient referrals in North Staffordshire. Br Med J 1983; 287:1439–41.

Fottler

. Physician attitudes toward physician extenders. Medical Care 1979; 17 (5):536–49.

Glenn

Goldman

Task delegation to physician extenders—some comparisons. Am J Public Health 1976; 66 (1):64–6.

Ekwo

Dusdieker

Fethke

Daniels

Physician's assistants in primary care practices: Delegation of tasks and physician supervision. Public Health Reports 1979; 94(4):340–8.

Bennett

. Clinical responsibility I. Br Med J 1977; 2:1584–9.

Clare

. Clinical responsibility. II. Where does the patient stand? Br Med J 1977; 2:1637–42.

Bird

Marks

Lindley

Nurse therapists in psychiatry: Developments, controversies and implication. Br J Psychol 1979; 135:321–9.

Ginsberg

Marks

Waters

Cost-benefit analysis of a controlled trial of nurse therapy for neuroses in primary care. Psychol Med 1984; 14(3):683–90.

10.

Marks

Hallam

Philpott

Connolly

. Nurse therapists in behavioural psychotherapy. Br Med J 1975; 3:144–8.

11.

Gardner

Holzman

. Interdisciplinary collaboration: Psychiatric medical backup in the outpatient clinic. Psychiatr Q 1983; 55(4):253–60.

12.

Horrocks

de Dombal

. Diagnosis of dyspepsia from data collected by a physician's assistant. Br Med J 1975; 3:421–3.

13.

Miller

Backett

. A new member of the team? Extending the role of the nurse in British primary care. Lancet 1980; 16:358–61.

14.

Spitzer

Sackett

Sibley

The Burlington randomized trial of the nurse practitioner. N Engl J Med 174; 31:251–6.

15.

Merskey

Development of a universal language of pain syndromes. Advances in pain research and therapy 1983; 5:37–52.

16.

Carlsson

. Assessment of chronic pain. II. Problems in the selection of relevant questionnaire items for classification of pain and evaluation and prediction of therapeutic effects. Pain 1984; 19:173–84.

Priority Setting with Regard to Placement on Waiting List to a Pain Clinic

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References