Skip to main content
NCBI home page
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 1999 Oct 5;161(7):813–817.

Fairness in the coronary angiography queue

D A Alter 1, A S Basinski 1, E A Cohen 1, C D Naylor 1
PMCID: PMC1230652  PMID: 10530297

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Since waiting lists for coronary angiography are generally managed without explicit queuing criteria, patients may not receive priority on the basis of clinical acuity. The objective of this study was to examine clinical and nonclinical determinants of the length of time patients wait for coronary angiography. METHODS: In this single-centre prospective cohort study conducted in the autumn of 1997, 357 consecutive patients were followed from initial triage until a coronary angiography was performed or an adverse cardiac event occurred. The referring physicians' hospital affiliation (physicians at Sunnybrook & Women's College Health Sciences Centre, those who practice at another centre but perform angiography at Sunnybrook and those with no previous association with Sunnybrook) was used to compare processes of care. A clinical urgency rating scale was used to assign a recommended maximum waiting time (RMWT) to each patient retrospectively, but this was not used in the queuing process. RMWTs and actual waiting times for patients in the 3 referral groups were compared; the influence clinical and nonclinical variables had on the actual length of time patients waited for coronary angiography was assessed; and possible predictors of adverse events were examined. RESULTS: Of 357 patients referred to Sunnybrook, 22 (6.2%) experienced adverse events while in the queue. Among those who remained, 308 (91.9%) were in need of coronary angiography; 201 (60.0%) of those patients received one within the RMWT. The length of time to angiography was influenced by clinical characteristics similar to those specified on the urgency rating scale, leading to a moderate agreement between actual waiting times and RMWTs (kappa = 0.53). However, physician affiliation was a highly significant (p < 0.001) and independent predictor of waiting time. Whereas 45.6% of the variation in waiting time was explained by all clinical factors combined, 9.3% of the variation was explained by physician affiliation alone. INTERPRETATION: Informal queuing practices for coronary angiography do reflect clinical acuity, but they are also influenced by nonclinical factors, such as the nature of the physicians' association with the catheterization facility.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (211.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Basinski A. S., Almond D. G., James R. G., Naylor C. D. Rating the urgency of coronary angiography: results of an expert panel process. Ontario Coronary Angiography Panel. Can J Cardiol. 1993 May;9(4):313–321. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Blustein J. High-technology cardiac procedures. The impact of service availability on service use in New York State. JAMA. 1993 Jul 21;270(3):344–349. doi: 10.1001/jama.270.3.344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cox J. L., Chen E., Naylor C. D. Revascularization after acute myocardial infarction: impact of hospital teaching status and on-site invasive facilities. J Gen Intern Med. 1994 Dec;9(12):674–678. doi: 10.1007/BF02599007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hartford K., Ross L. L., Walld R. Regional variation in angiography, coronary artery bypass surgery, and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in Manitoba, 1987 to 1992: the funnel effect. Med Care. 1998 Jul;36(7):1022–1032. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199807000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Krumholz H. M., Chen J., Murillo J. E., Cohen D. J., Radford M. J. Admission to hospitals with on-site cardiac catheterization facilities :impact on long-term costs and outcomes. Circulation. 1998 Nov 10;98(19):2010–2016. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.98.19.2010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Morgan C. D., Sykora K., Naylor C. D. Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada. The Steering Committee of the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario. Heart. 1998 Apr;79(4):345–349. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Morris A. L., Roos L. L., Brazauskas R., Bedard D. Managing scarce services. A waiting list approach to cardiac catheterization. Med Care. 1990 Sep;28(9):784–792. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Naylor C. D. A different view of queues in Ontario. Health Aff (Millwood) 1991 Fall;10(3):110–128. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.10.3.110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Naylor C. D., Baigrie R. S., Goldman B. S., Basinski A. Assessment of priority for coronary revascularisation procedures. Revascularisation Panel and Consensus Methods Group. Lancet. 1990 May 5;335(8697):1070–1073. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)92640-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Naylor C. D., Levinton C. M., Baigrie R. S. Adapting to waiting lists for coronary revascularization. Do Canadian specialists agree on which patients come first? Chest. 1992 Mar;101(3):715–722. doi: 10.1378/chest.101.3.715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Naylor C. D., Levinton C. M., Wheeler S., Hunter L. Queueing for coronary surgery during severe supply-demand mismatch in a Canadian referral centre: a case study of implicit rationing. Soc Sci Med. 1993 Jul;37(1):61–67. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90318-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Naylor C. D., McGlynn E. A., Leape L. L., Pinfold S. P., Bernstein S. J., Hilborne L. H., Park R. E., Kahan J. P., Brook R. H. Coronary angiography and revascularization: defining procedural indications through formal group processes. The Canadian Revascularization Panel, the Canadian Coronary Angiography Panel. Can J Cardiol. 1994 Jan-Feb;10(1):41–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Naylor C. D., Sykora K., Jaglal S. B., Jefferson S. Waiting for coronary artery bypass surgery: population-based study of 8517 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada. The Steering Committee of the Adult Cardiac Care Network of Ontario. Lancet. 1995 Dec 16;346(8990):1605–1609. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)91934-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

RESOURCES