Waiting lists for elective procedures are a characteristic feature of tax-funded universal health systems. New Zealand has gained a reputation for its 'booking system' for waiting list management, introduced in the early-1990s. The New Zealand system uses criteria to 'score' and then 'book' qualifying patients for surgery. This article aims to (i) describe key issues focused on by the media, (ii) identify local strategies and (iii) present evidence of variation. Newspaper sources were searched (2000-2006). A total of 1199 booking system stories were identified. Findings demonstrate, from a national system perspective, the extraordinarily difficult nature of maintaining overall control and coordination. Equity and national consistency are affected when hospitals respond to local pressure by reducing access to elective treatment. Findings suggest that central government probably needs to be closely involved in local-level management and policy adjustments; that through the study period, the New Zealand system appears to have been largely out of the control of government; and that governments elsewhere may need to be cautious when considering developing similar systems. Developing and implementing scoring and booking systems may always be a 'messy reality' with unintended consequences and throwing regional differences in service management and access into stark relief.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 July 2012.
All research outputs
#27,390,724
of 33,168,295 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Health Planning and Management
#883
of 1,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,398
of 205,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Health Planning and Management
#12
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,168,295 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,024 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 205,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
