Patient satisfaction with out-of-hours services; how do GP co-operatives compare with deputizing and practice-based arrangements?
(33/1401)
BACKGROUND: Although the rapid growth in general practitioner (GP) co-operatives has met with GP satisfaction, little is known about patient satisfaction. This study compares patient satisfaction with co-operative, GP practice-based and deputizing arrangements within one geographical area 15 months after a co-operative had become established; and with telephone, primary care centre and home consultations within the co-operative. METHODS: A validated postal questionnaire survey of weighted samples of patients making contact with the co-operative, practice-based and deputizing arrangements was undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 1,823 (53.2 per cent) patients responded. There were no significant differences between organizations in terms of overall satisfaction, but patients using practice-based arrangements were significantly more satisfied with the waiting time for telephone consultations (p<0.001) and more satisfied with waiting times for home visits than deputizing patients (p=0.020). Within the co-operative, overall satisfaction, satisfaction with the doctor's manner and with the process of making contact was greater among those attending the primary care centre, and satisfaction with explanation and advice received greater than for patients receiving telephone consultations alone (p<0.01). Those receiving telephone advice reported increased information needs and help seeking during the following week (p< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients were as satisfied with the co-operative as with practice-based or deputizing service arrangements, although many concerns were expressed about the quality of service provision. Differences in satisfaction were greater between forms of service delivery within the co-operative. Dissatisfaction with telephone consultations needs to be considered, together with issues relating to equity in access to out-of-hours' primary care centre consultations and the potential impact of NHS Direct. (+info)
Trade-offs between location and waiting times in the provision of health care: the case of elective surgery on the Isle of Wight.
(34/1401)
BACKGROUND: Recent UK government documents have stated that, within the National Health Service, consumers should be more involved in decision-making. This study considered the technique of discrete choice conjoint analysis (DCCA) for eliciting community views regarding the importance of reducing waiting times. More specifically, the study aimed to establish whether residents living on the Isle of Wight are prepared to travel to the mainland for elective surgery where waiting times are shorter but travel costs may be greater, and, further, if residents are willing to travel, what reduction in waiting time and increase in travel costs would be acceptable. METHODS: A DCCA questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 1,000 individuals living on the Isle of Wight. RESULTS: Seventy-eight per cent of respondents were willing to travel to the mainland for elective surgery. Of these, 48 per cent always chose the mainland and 30 per cent traded between island and mainland, depending on the levels of waiting time and travel costs. Whereas 'traders' preferred the Isle of Wight, they would forgo their preferred location if waiting times were reduced by at least 3.9 months, and they were willing to pay over 12 for a 1 month reduction in waiting time. Different combinations of waiting time reductions and travel cost increases that were acceptable to traders were estimated. CONCLUSIONS: Carrying out elective surgery on the mainland offers the potential to reduce waiting lists for island residents. The majority of respondents would be willing to travel to the mainland. However, one-fifth of respondents were not willing to travel to the mainland for elective surgery. The preferences of this group are important in policy decisions. More generally, the paper demonstrates the potential application of DCCA to public health issues. (+info)
Living unrelated donor kidney transplantation.
(35/1401)
BACKGROUND: Living unrelated donors remain an underutilized resource, despite their high graft survival rates. In this article, we updated the long-term results of more than 2500 living unrelated donor transplants performed in the United States. METHODS: Between 1987 and 1998, 1765 spouse, 986 living unrelated, 27,535 living related, and 86,953 cadaver donor grafts were reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing Kidney Registry. Kaplan-Meier curves compared graft survival rates in stratified analyses, and a log-linear analysis adjusted donor-specific outcomes for the effects of 24 other transplant factors. RESULTS: The long-term survival rates for both spouse and living unrelated transplants were essentially the same (5-year graft survivals of 75 and 72% and half-lives of 14 and 13 years, respectively). The results were similar to that for parent donor grafts (5-year graft survival = 74% and half-life = 12 years) and were significantly (P = 0.003) better than cadaver donor grafts (5-year graft survival = 62% and half-life = 9 years). After adjusting for the presence of transplant factors known to influence survival rates, recipients of living unrelated donor kidney transplants still had superior outcomes compared with cadaver transplants. CONCLUSIONS: Living unrelated kidney donors represent the fastest growing donor source in the United States and provide excellent long-term results. Encouraging spouses to donate could remove nearly 15% of the patients from the UNOS waiting list, effectively increasing the number of available cadaveric organs. (+info)
Heart transplantation in children in foreign countries with reference to medical, transportation, and financial issues.
(36/1401)
Heart transplantation is increasingly becoming accepted worldwide as therapy for end-stage heart failure not only in adult patients but also in pediatric practice. The new law in Japan for organ transplantation from brain-dead patients was established on 16 October 1998, but there is no definite law or protocol for brain death in children under the age of 6 years and children less than 15 years of age cannot become donors. These facts make organ transplantation from the cadavers of neonates, infants and young children almost impossible in Japan, even though there are children who need heart or heart-lung transplantation. The present authors have to date transferred 8 patients to the USA or Germany for heart transplantation: 4 successfully underwent heart transplantation, but 4 died during the waiting period overseas. There are many things to consider; not only the medical problems involved in transportation, but also the financial issues when transferring patients to other countries. This report details the experience with the 8 cases that were transferred overseas for heart transplantation, and highlights the problems that need to be considered. (+info)
Effect of receiving a heart transplant: analysis of a national cohort entered on to a waiting list, stratified by heart failure severity. Comparative Outcome and Clinical Profiles in Transplantation (COCPIT) Study Group.
(37/1401)
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a survival benefit associated with cardiac transplantation in Germany. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: All 889 adult patients listed for a first heart transplant in Germany in 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mortality, stratified by heart failure severity. RESULTS: Within 1 year after listing, patients with a predicted high risk had the highest global death rate (51% v 32% and 29% for medium and low risk patients respectively; P<0.0001), had the highest risk of dying on the waiting list (32% v 20% and 20%; P=0.0003), and were more likely to receive a transplant (48% v 45% and 41%; P=0.01). Differences between the risk groups in outcome after transplantation did not reach significance (P=0.2). Transplantation was not associated with a reduction in mortality risk for the total cohort, but it did provide a survival benefit for the high risk group. CONCLUSION: Cardiac transplantation in Germany is currently associated with a survival benefit only in patients with a predicted high risk of dying on the waiting list. Patients with a predicted low or medium risk have no reduction in mortality risk associated with transplantation; they should be managed with organ saving approaches rather than transplantation. (+info)
Effect of waiting time on renal transplant outcome.
(38/1401)
BACKGROUND: Numerous factors are known to impact on patient survival after renal transplantation. Recent studies have confirmed a survival advantage for renal transplant patients over those waiting on dialysis. We aimed to investigate the hypothesis that longer waiting times are more deleterious than shorter waiting times, that is, to detect a "dose effect" for waiting time. METHODS: We analyzed 73,103 primary adult renal transplants registered at the United States Renal Data System Registry from 1988 to 1997 for the primary endpoints of death with functioning graft and death-censored graft failure by Cox proportional hazard models. All models were corrected for donor and recipient demographics and other factors known to affect outcome after kidney transplantation. RESULTS: A longer waiting time on dialysis is a significant risk factor for death-censored graft survival and patient death with functioning graft after renal transplantation (P < 0.001 each). Relative to preemptive transplants, waiting times of 6 to 12 months, 12 to 24 months, 24 to 36, 36 to 48, and over 48 months confer a 21, 28, 41, 53, and 72% increase in mortality risk after transplantation, respectively. Relative to preemptive transplants, waiting times of 0 to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, 12 to 24 months, and over 24 months confer a 17, 37, 55, and 68% increase in risk for death-censored graft loss after transplantation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Longer waiting times on dialysis negatively impact on post-transplant graft and patient survival. These data strongly support the hypothesis that patients who reach end-stage renal disease should receive a renal transplant as early as possible in order to enhance their chances of long-term survival. (+info)
Liver transplant waiting time does not correlate with waiting list mortality: implications for liver allocation policy.
(39/1401)
Factors associated with the risk for mortality once placed on the liver transplant waiting list and how this risk relates to center-specific waiting time and transplant activity have not been adequately evaluated. We performed this study to determine the association between center-specific waiting time and waiting list mortality among liver transplant candidates stratified by medical urgency at the time of registration. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate 2-year mortality risk for a cohort of 16, 414 registrants added to the United Network for Organ Sharing liver transplant waiting list between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 1997. After controlling for confounding variables, we calculated the mortality risk for centers, organ procurement organizations (OPOs), and states. The relation between center-specific waiting list mortality risk and median waiting time or transplant activity was determined by linear regression. In multivariate analyses, higher initial medical urgency status (relative risk [RR] = 12.8; P <.001), increasing age (P <.001), black ethnicity (RR = 1.29; P <.001), history of previous transplant (RR = 1.2; P =.009), certain liver diagnoses, and smaller center size (RR = 1.39; P =.008) were associated with significantly increased waiting list mortality. Candidates with blood type A (RR = 0.87; P <.001) and those with cholestatic cirrhosis as the primary diagnosis (RR = 0.73; P < 0. 001) had a reduced risk for dying. There were significant variations in 2-year waiting list mortality risk among centers, OPOs, and states. However, when stratified by medical urgency status at waiting list entry, center-specific waiting time and transplantation rates accounted for almost none of the center-specific waiting list mortality. Although there are variations in waiting list mortality risk among centers, OPOs, and states, there is very little relation between center-specific waiting list mortality and center-specific median waiting time or center-specific transplantation rates when stratified by medical urgency. Waiting time and center transplant rates should not influence liver allocation policy. (+info)
Survival analysis and risk factors for mortality in transplantation and staged surgery for hypoplastic left heart syndrome.
(40/1401)
OBJECTIVES: We compared survival in treatment strategies and determined risk factors for one-year mortality for hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) using intention-to-treat analysis. BACKGROUND: Staged revision of the native heart and transplantation as treatments for HLHS have been compared in treatment-received analyses, which can bias results. METHODS: Data on 231 infants with HLHS, born between 1989 and 1994 and intended for surgery, were collected from four pediatric cardiac surgical centers. Status at last contact for survival analysis and mortality at one year for risk factor analysis were the outcome measures. RESULTS: Survival curves showed improved survival for patients intended for transplantation over patients intended for staged surgery. One-year survival was 61% for transplantation and 42% for staged surgery (p < 0.01); five-year survival was 55% and 38%, respectively (p < 0.01). Survival curves adjusted for preoperative differences were also significantly different (p < 0.001). Waiting-list mortality accounted for 63% of first-year deaths in the transplantation group. Mortality with stage 1 surgery accounted for 86% of that strategy's first-year mortality. Birth weight <3 kg (odds ratio [OR] 2.4), highest creatinine > or =2 mg/dL (OR 4.7), restrictive atrial septal defect (OR 2.7) and, in staged surgery, atresia of one (OR 4.2) or both (OR 11.0) left-sided valves produced a higher risk for one-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Transplantation produced significantly higher survival at all ages up to seven years. Patients with atresia of one or both valves do poorly in staged surgery and have significantly higher survival with transplantation. This information may be useful in directing patients to the better strategy for them. (+info)