Patient Survey of Referral From One Surgeon to Another to Reduce Maximum Waiting Time for Elective Surgery and Hours of Overutilized Operating Room Time
Studies of shared (patient-provider) decision making for elective surgical care have examined both the decision whether to have surgery and patients' understanding of treatment options. We consider shared decision making applied to case scheduling, since implementation would reduce labor costs.
Study questions were presented in sequence of waiting times, starting with 4 workdays. "Assume the consultant surgeon (ie, the surgeon in charge) you met in clinic did not have time available to do your surgery within the next 4 workdays, but his/her colleague would have had time to do your surgery within the next 4 workdays. Would you have wanted to discuss with a member of the surgical team (eg, the scheduler or the surgeon) the availability of surgery with a different, equally qualified surgeon at Mayo Clinic who had time available within the next 4 workdays, on a date of your choosing?" There were 980 invited patients who underwent lung resection or cholecystectomy between 2011 and 2016; 135 respondents completed the study and 6 respondents dropped out after the study questions were displayed.
The percentages of patients whose response to the study questions was "4 days" were 58.8% (40/68) among lung resection patients and 58.2% (39/67) among cholecystectomy patients. The 97.5% 2-sided confidence interval for the median maximum wait was 4 days to 4 days. Patients' choices for the waiting time sufficient to discuss having another surgeon perform the procedure did not differ between procedures (P = .91). Results were insensitive to patients' sex, age, travel time to hospital, or number of office visits before surgery (all P ≥ .20).
Our results indicate that bringing up the option with the patient of changing surgeons when a colleague is available and has the operating room time to perform the procedure sooner is being respectful of most patients' individual preferences (ie, patient-centered).
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 July 2017.
All research outputs
#22,269,201
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesia and analgesia
#8,067
of 10,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,481
of 372,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesia and analgesia
#78
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
