Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 6;16(7):e0253875. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253875

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on waiting times for elective surgery patients: A multicenter study

Mikko Uimonen 1,*, Ilari Kuitunen 2,3, Juha Paloneva 1,2, Antti P Launonen 4, Ville Ponkilainen 1, Ville M Mattila 4,5
Editor: Corstiaan den Uil6
PMCID: PMC8259989  PMID: 34228727

Abstract

Background

A concern has been that health care reorganizations during the first COVID-19 wave have led to delays in elective surgeries, resulting in increased complications and even mortality. This multicenter study examined the changes in waiting times of elective surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland.

Methods

Data on elective surgery were gathered from three Finnish public hospitals for years 2017–2020. Surgery incidence and waiting times were examined and the year 2020 was compared to the reference years 2017–2019. The mean annual, monthly, and weekly waiting times were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The most common diagnosis groups were examined separately.

Findings

A total of 88 693 surgeries were included during the study period. The mean waiting time in 2020 was 92.6 (CI 91.5–93.8) days, whereas the mean waiting time in the reference years was 85.8 (CI 85.1–86.5) days, resulting in an average 8% increase in waiting times in 2020. Elective procedure incidence decreased rapidly in the onset of the first COVID-19 wave in March 2020 but recovered in May and June, after which the surgery incidence was 22% higher than in the reference years and remained at this level until the end of the year. In May 2020 and thereafter until November, waiting times were longer with monthly increases varying between 7% and 34%. In gastrointestinal and genitourinary diseases and neoplasms, waiting times were longer in 2020. In cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases, waiting times were shorter in 2020.

Conclusion

The health care reorganizations due to the pandemic have increased elective surgery waiting times by as much as one-third, even though the elective surgery rate increased by one-fifth after the lockdown.

Introduction

The spread of COVID-19 led to a nationwide lockdown in Finland in March 2020. During the first pandemic wave, emergency department visits decreased, but emergency surgeries remained unchanged [1]. In preparation for the predicted surge in COVID-19 cases, public health care was reorganized and elective surgeries postponed. By summer, the first wave had abated. During the second wave in the fall, regional stepwise restrictions were used instead of lockdown. During this period, elective surgeries were not postponed and efforts were made to address the accumulated backlog in elective surgery. A concern has been that actions taken during the first wave have led to delays in elective surgeries, resulting in increased complications and even mortality [24].

This multicenter study examined the changes in waiting times of elective surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland.

Methods

Anonymized data on elective surgeries from 2017–2020 were collected from the electronic patient registers of three large Finnish public hospitals–Central Finland Hospital, Mikkeli Central Hospital, and Tampere University Hospital–covering approximately 900 000 citizens (1/6th of Finnish population). In Finland, health care is publicly funded and accessible for all citizens, and preoperative assessment is made in hospital outpatient clinics. According to Finnish law, elective surgeries must be performed within six months from the initial decision. Waiting times in days were calculated from the time interval between the date of the decision to operate and the date of the operation. To focus solely on elective surgery, operations within 14 days from the decision were excluded.

The weekly incidences and 95% CIs of elective surgeries were calculated for 2020 and the reference years using Poisson exact method. The total population within study hospitals’ catchment area was obtained from Statistics Finland [5]. The mean annual, monthly, and weekly waiting times for elective surgeries with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for year 2020 and for commonly for the reference years 2017–2019. The weekly elective surgery incidence and waiting times in year 2020 were compared to the reference years. We focused on changes in waiting times during the nationwide lockdown period (March 16 to June 1) and during the period of regional restrictions (September onwards). In addition, waiting times were stratified by diagnosis groups. These groups included cardiovascular (ICD-10 I*), musculoskeletal (M*), gastrointestinal (K2-K9*) and genitourinary (N*) diseases, and neoplasms (C* and D0-4*). To illustrate the differences, ratios between weekly mean waiting time in 2020 and in the reference years were calculated by dividing waiting times in 2020 by those in the reference years. Statistical analysis was performed using R (4.0.3) statistical software. According to the Finnish research legislation and The Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, appointed by the Ministry of Education and Culture, ethical committee approval was not required due to register-based study design [6]. Due to the retrospective register-based study design with completely anonymized and non-identifiable patient data, consents to participate in the study were not required as stated by Finnish law [7].

Results

A total of 88 693 surgeries were included. After the beginning of the lockdown, elective procedures decreased rapidly but recovered in May and June (Fig 1). When the lockdown was lifted at the beginning of the summer vacation period, the elective surgery incidence was 22% higher than in the reference years and remained at this level until the end of the year.

Fig 1. Weekly incidence and 95% confidence intervals of elective surgeries in 2020 and in the reference years.

Fig 1

After the start of the lockdown in March and April 2020, elective surgery waiting times were 10% and 16% shorter than in the reference years, respectively (Fig 2). However, in May 2020 and thereafter, waiting times were longer until November, with monthly increases varying between 7% and 34%. The mean waiting time in 2020 was 92.6 (CI 91.5–93.8) days, whereas the mean waiting time in the reference years was 85.8 (CI 85.1–86.5) days, resulting in an average 8% increase in waiting times in 2020.

Fig 2. Weekly mean and 95% confidence intervals of elective surgery waiting times in 2020 and the reference years.

Fig 2

The annual mean surgery waiting time in musculoskeletal diseases was 93 (CI 92–95) days in 2020 and 100 (CI 98–102) days in the reference years (Fig 3). In gastrointestinal and genitourinary diseases, waiting times increased after the lockdown (Fig 3). The annual mean increases in waiting times were 8% in gastrointestinal diseases (92 [CI 88–96] days in 2020 vs. 85 [CI 83–87] days in the reference years) and 19% in genitourinary diseases (112 [CI 108–115] days in 2020 vs. 94 [CI 92–95] days in the reference years). In surgeries due to cardiovascular diseases, there were an occasional decrease in the waiting times during the lockdown period after which the waiting times followed the reference years’ level (Fig 3). The mean annual waiting time for cardiovascular surgeries in 2020 (85 [CI 80–90] days) was 3% lower than in the reference years (88 [CI 86–91] days).

Fig 3. Ratio between the weekly mean waiting time and 95% confidence intervals in 2020 (purple line) and the mean waiting time in the reference years (black parallel line) in elective surgeries of the most common diagnosis groups.

Fig 3

In neoplasms, waiting times shortened at the beginning of lockdown, but between June and September they were 18% to 28% longer than in the reference years (Fig 3). For the year 2020, mean waiting times were 6% longer than in the reference years (59 [CI 57–61] days in 2020 vs. 56 [CI 54–57] days in the reference years).

Discussion

According to our findings, COVID-19 had a substantial influence on waiting times for elective surgery. During lockdown, waiting times decreased temporarily, after which they increased rapidly and leveled-off until the end of 2020.

Concerns have been raised that COVID-19 would lead to delays in elective surgery due to the postponement of non-urgent procedures. Delays in surgery have been shown to have an impact on outcomes, with longer delays causing worse prognoses in many diseases. Thus, the benefit of surgery decreases along with longer waiting times [2, 810]. In the early phase of the pandemic, waiting times paradoxically decreased. This may be explained by the prioritization of surgeries. Nevertheless, the rapid increase in waiting times thereafter probably reflected an increasing treatment backlog in elective surgery. Although Finland did not experience severe intensive care unit overload or substantial pandemic, the lockdown and health care reorganizations led to a remarkable increase in waiting times.

Overall, the beginning of the lockdown period led to decreased elective surgery incidence and simultaneously decreased elective surgery waiting times. The magnitude of the decreases was similar to the decreases during summer vacation period observed during the reference years. In contrast to the reference years, in 2020 the elective surgery incidence during the summer vacation period and thereafter was higher until the end of the year. However, the waiting times increased above the reference level in May and remained high until October. These findings suggest that despite the considerable efforts made to solve the burden of cumulated elective surgery backlog during the summer period, it required at least five months to reach the reference levels of waiting times.

Examination of the diagnosis groups showed varying patterns between groups. In cardiovascular and musculoskeletal surgeries, the waiting times decreased occasionally during the lockdown and rapidly returned to the reference level. For the entire year, surgery waiting times were shorter in cardiovascular and musculoskeletal surgery in 2020 than in the reference years. In gastrointestinal and genitourinary diseases as well as neoplasms, waiting times were longer. In these diseases, the lengthened waiting times recovered after several months. In oncological surgery, delays may be detrimental for prognosis and survival [8, 10, 11]. However, a previous study from Finland reported that the rate of oncological surgeries remained stable during the pandemic despite the cancellations [12].

The consequences of COVID-19 pandemic and the limited elective capacity during the initial harsh restrictions may become more apparent in the near future in the form of longer treatment queues which may lead to worsening of diseases and increased mortality due to delayed diagnostics and treatment. In addition, due to the limited access to primary care during the initial lockdown, there may still be treatment backlog to be solved. Indeed, according to the national mortality data obtained from Statistics Finland database, overall all-cause mortality increased over the reference level after the initiation of the pandemic in Finland (Fig 4). The observed increase resulted in 4% higher mortality during March to December 2020 than during the corresponding period of the reference years (IRR 1.04 [CI 1.03–1.05]). Further, it is likely that the overall consequences of the pandemic on the mortality have not yet been seen but they may become visible over the following years.

Fig 4. Monthly national mortality incidence per 100 000 persons in Finland and 95% confidence intervals in 2020 (purple line) and in the reference years (black line).

Fig 4

Statistics Finland Population data, available in [https://pxnet2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/fi/StatFin/].

To address and manage the treatment backlog in surgical units, traditional perioperative care protocols may need to be revised to enhance the patient flow and hence respond to the cumulated burden [13]. In future, carefully designed preparation plans for national emergencies with a possibility of rapid response to changing circumstances as well as proper restrictions enacted by the authorities and politicians are needed to secure the capacity and procedure rates in surgery units, despite the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic should be considered as an important lesson for future policy making during possible future pandemics and similar conditions. The current pandemic plans were aimed to secure resources for managing the forthcoming COVID-19 surge but the plans how to mitigate and solve the cumulative treatment backlog and how to prioritize the resources were insufficient [14].

The main strength of this study is the representative Finnish public health care data collected from three large Finnish hospitals that included reference data from three previous years. The main limitation of this study is the common shortcomings of registries that in general eliminate the possibility to estimate the effects of waiting times on individual patients.

In summary, the health care reorganizations due to COVID-19 have increased elective surgery waiting times by as much as one-third, even though the elective surgery incidence increased by one-fifth after the lockdown. Delays were seen in procedures that were performed a few months after the beginning of the pandemic. Although subsequently recovering to the reference levels, the lengthened waiting times may be reflected in increased mortality and a need for more complex surgery in the near future.

Supporting information

S1 File. Anonymized data.

Anonymized data set supporting the findings of this study.

(XLSX)

S2 File. Fig 1 point estimates.

Point estimates extracted from Fig 1.

(XLSX)

S3 File. Fig 2 point estimates.

Point estimates extracted from Fig 2.

(XLSX)

S4 File. Fig 3 point estimates.

Point estimates extracted from Fig 3.

(XLSX)

S5 File. Fig 4 point estimates.

Point estimates extracted from Fig 4.

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Ponkilainen V, Kuitunen I, Hevonkorpi TP, Paloneva J, Reito A, Launonen AP, et al. The effect of nationwide lockdown and societal restrictions due to COVID-19 on emergency and urgent surgeries. Br J Surg. 2020;107(10):e405–e6. doi: 10.1002/bjs.11847 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sud A, Jones ME, Broggio J, Loveday C, Torr B, Garrett A, et al. Collateral damage: the impact on outcomes from cancer surgery of the COVID-19 pandemic. Annals of Oncology. 2020;31(8):1065–74. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.05.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sud A, Torr B, Jones ME, Broggio J, Scott S, Loveday C, et al. Effect of delays in the 2-week-wait cancer referral pathway during the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survival in the UK: a modelling study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(8):1035–44. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30392-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Maringe C, Spicer J, Morris M, Purushotham A, Nolte E, Sullivan R, et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer deaths due to delays in diagnosis in England, UK: a national, population-based, modelling study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(8):1023–34. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30388-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Statistics Finland. 2021 [Available from: https://pxnet2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/StatFin/.
  • 6.Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK: Guidelines for ethical review in human sciences (10.10.2019) 2019 [Available from: https://tenk.fi/en/advice-and-materials/guidelines-ethical-review-human-sciences.
  • 7.Finnish Ministry of Justice, Law on Data Protection (902/2020), 10.12.2020.. 2020.
  • 8.Yun Y, Kim Y, Min Y, Park S, Won Y, Kim D, et al. The influence of hospital volume and surgical treatment delay on long-term survival after cancer surgery. Annals of oncology. 2012;23(10):2731–7. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Garbuz DS, Xu M, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Sobolev B. Delays worsen quality of life outcome of primary total hip arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (1976–2007). 2006;447:79–84. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000203477.19421.ed [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Grass F, Behm KT, Duchalais E, Crippa J, Spears GM, Harmsen WS, et al. Impact of delay to surgery on survival in stage I-III colon cancer. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2020;46(3):455–61. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.11.513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bleicher RJ, Ruth K, Sigurdson ER, Beck JR, Ross E, Wong Y-N, et al. Time to surgery and breast cancer survival in the United States. JAMA oncology. 2016;2(3):330–9. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.4508 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kuitunen I, Ponkilainen VT, Uimonen MM, Paloneva J, Launonen AP, Mattila VM. Postponing elective surgery due to COVID-19 did not decrease the oncological surgery rate in Finland. Br J Surg. 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gregory AJ, Grant MC, Boyle E, Arora RC, Williams JB, Salenger R, et al. Cardiac Surgery-Enhanced Recovery Programs Modified for COVID-19: Key Steps to Preserve Resources, Manage Caseload Backlog, and Improve Patient Outcomes. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. 2020;34(12):3218–24. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2020.08.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.National influenza pandemic contingency plan: Government Communications Department, Publications of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 2012:9;

Decision Letter 0

Corstiaan den Uil

7 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-12922

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Waiting Times for Elective Surgery Patients: A Multicenter Study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Uimonen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 22 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Corstiaan den Uil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. In your ethics statement in the Methods section and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the data used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The findings reported in this extensive data base/registry analysis are logical and have in a similar way been presented elsewhere (and in other societies and health care systems); thus findings are not revolutionary or new, but still important to portrait the reaction of the system in Finland.

The manuscript would certainly benefit from inclusion of cardiovascular or at least cardiac surgeries and interventions which may have had a bigger impact onto morbidity/mortality than operations to the gastrointestinal or urogenital system.

Another peculiar observation is obviously a "summer brake phenomenon" clearly seen regardless of the pandemic in all the years analysed. This phenomenon should also be discussed as it deserves comments and could raise speculations.

Finally, it is a pity that the observations of the impact of Covid-19 in Finland could not be compared directly with mortality figures (that should by now be available at the National Office of Statistics).

Again, the information will probably not be really new but important for the country.

In their conclusion the authors should be more daring and suggest how to better react to a lockdown in a future pandemic, and how resources and capacity in the health care system should be allocated better,

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Christoph A. Nienaber

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 6;16(7):e0253875. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253875.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 Jun 2021

Reviewer #1:

The findings reported in this extensive data base/registry analysis are logical and have in a similar way been presented elsewhere (and in other societies and health care systems); thus findings are not revolutionary or new, but still important to portrait the reaction of the system in Finland.

The authors’ response: Thank you.

The manuscript would certainly benefit from inclusion of cardiovascular or at least cardiac surgeries and interventions which may have had a bigger impact onto morbidity/mortality than operations to the gastrointestinal or urogenital system.

The authors’ response: Thank you for this suggestion. We expanded the analysis to cover the surgeries performed due to cardiovascular diseases. Please see the corresponding revisions in Methods (line 70), Results (lines 92-96) and Discussion (lines 124-126) sections as well as in Figure 3.

Another peculiar observation is obviously a "summer brake phenomenon" clearly seen regardless of the pandemic in all the years analysed. This phenomenon should also be discussed as it deserves comments and could raise speculations.

The authors’ response: Thank you. Discussion on the summer brake phenomenon has been added (lines 114-122).

Finally, it is a pity that the observations of the impact of Covid-19 in Finland could not be compared directly with mortality figures (that should by now be available at the National Office of Statistics).

Again, the information will probably not be really new but important for the country.

The authors’ response: Thank you for this suggestion. We added discussion on the mortality rates in Finland during the pandemic (lines 136-142) and Figure 4. However, since Statistics Finland database does not provide monthly mortality rates for the catchment areas of the study hospitals, we had to use monthly mortality data for the entire country. Nonetheless, we considered the data obtained from the study hospitals representative of the Finnish population. Therefore, the data of the study hospitals may be considered comparable to the national mortality rates.

In their conclusion the authors should be more daring and suggest how to better react to a lockdown in a future pandemic, and how resources and capacity in the health care system should be allocated better.

The authors’ response: Suggestions for preparation for future pandemics have been added to Discussion section (lines 132-152).

Decision Letter 1

Corstiaan den Uil

15 Jun 2021

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Waiting Times for Elective Surgery Patients: A Multicenter Study

PONE-D-21-12922R1

Dear Dr. Uimonen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Corstiaan den Uil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Corstiaan den Uil

24 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-12922R1

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Waiting Times for Elective Surgery Patients: A Multicenter Study

Dear Dr. Uimonen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Corstiaan den Uil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Anonymized data.

    Anonymized data set supporting the findings of this study.

    (XLSX)

    S2 File. Fig 1 point estimates.

    Point estimates extracted from Fig 1.

    (XLSX)

    S3 File. Fig 2 point estimates.

    Point estimates extracted from Fig 2.

    (XLSX)

    S4 File. Fig 3 point estimates.

    Point estimates extracted from Fig 3.

    (XLSX)

    S5 File. Fig 4 point estimates.

    Point estimates extracted from Fig 4.

    (XLSX)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES