This Article
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bellan, L.
Right arrow Articles by Mathen, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bellan, L.
Right arrow Articles by Mathen, M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Quality improvement
Right arrow Other medicare
Right arrow Ophthalmology
CMAJ • October 2, 2001; 165 (7)
© 2001 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors

Letters
Correspondance

Prioritization for cataract surgery

Lorne Bellan and Mathen Mathen

Misericordia Health Centre Winnipeg, Man.; Misericordia Health Centre Winnipeg, Man.

The Manitoba Cataract Waiting List Program prioritizes patients for cataract surgery on the basis of functional impairment (VF-14), potential loss of work, potential loss of a driver's licence and time spent waiting.1 We would argue that a prioritization system comprised of multiple independent components, some medical and some social, cannot be validated by a single "objective patient-derived outcome measure." We would also argue that as long as each component is reasonable and has been objectively validated where possible, the overall result is reasonable.

We chose the VF-14 as our ranking tool for functional impairment in Manitoba precisely because it has been objectively shown to be a highly consistent, valid measure of functional impairment caused by cataracts2 and has been shown in outcome studies to be a robust predictor of change in patients' satisfaction with their vision.3 International studies have demonstrated it to be reliable and responsive to change in visual function.4,5,6,7 Two of the 14 questions in the VF-14 relate to driving: we do not believe this is a heavy bias. If anything, the VF-14 is biased against visual impairment in the workplace because the questions were specifically selected to review a broad spectrum of vision-dependent activities in everyday life.2

We do not believe it is necessary to subject the additional points we awarded for potential loss of work to an outcome study. The ophthalmologists in our community made a value judgement that they wished to continue giving priority to patients who risked losing their jobs because of visual impairment. Similarly, most ophthalmologists tended to give priority to patients at risk of losing their driver's licence and wished to maintain this pattern of practice. (This has been subjected to outcome analysis: most studies looking at Snellen acuity after cataract surgery have shown a >90% rate of attainment of 20/40 acuity, the threshold for a driver's licence.8)

Giving points for time spent on the waiting list might encourage surgeons to manipulate the system if all patients were pooled together. However, in the Manitoba Cataract Waiting List Program each surgeon's waiting list is kept separate; all patients are assessed by the same criteria, but data are pooled only for statistical analysis. This separation of the waiting lists eliminates any reason to manipulate the system given that all members of the department share operating room time equally.

Sanmugasunderam and Romanchuk also argue that the length of time spent waiting for surgery should not affect a patient's prioritization if his or her functional impairment remains unchanged, unless the wait produces clearly proven morbidity. Surgery is booked when the cataract reduces visual function to a level that interferes with everyday activities.8 This has been shown to have negative implications for general health9 and has led some jurisdictions to set maximum reasonable waiting times for different levels of functional impairment.10,11

Sanmugasunderam and Romanchuk state that our program is "just a consensus model." We would argue that the consensus component of the model is an integral reason for its success. It was through consensus that we agreed upon the criteria to measure. We then selected the most objectively validated tools and agreed upon a relative scoring system. Another jurisdiction might go through the same process and come up with different criteria or a different scoring system. We feel that surgeons are more likely to accept the process if they have been involved in creating it.

References

  1. Bellan L, Mathen M. The Manitoba Cataract Waiting List Program. CMAJ 2001;164(8): 1177-80.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, Javitt JC, Sharkey P, Cassard SD, et al. The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:630-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, Javitt JC, Sharkey P, Cassard SD, et al. National study of cataract surgery outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures. Ophthalmology 1994;101: 1131-40.[Medline]
  4. Alonso J, Espallargues M, Andersen TF, Cassard SD, Dunn E, Bernth-Petersen P, et al. International applicability of the VF-14. An index of visual function in patients with cataracts. Ophthalmology 1997;104:799-807.[Medline]
  5. Cassard SD, Patrick DL, Damiano AM, Legro MW, Tielsch JM, Diener-West M, et al. Reproducibility and responsiveness of the VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataracts. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113:1508-13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Gresset J, Boisjoly H, Nguyen TQ, Boutin J, Charest M. Validation of French-language versions of the Visual Functioning Index (VF-14) and the Cataract Symptom Score. Can J Ophthalmol 1997; 32: 31-37.[Medline]
  7. Uusitalo RJ, Tarkkanen A. Outcomes of small incision cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998; 24: 212-21.[Medline]
  8. O'Day D, Adams A, Cassem E, Donlon J. Cataracts in adults: management of functional impairment. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services; 1993.
  9. Lee PP, Spritzer K, Hays RD. The impact of blurred vision on functioning and well-being. Ophthalmology 1997;104:390-6.[Medline]
  10. Sarkies N, Everson J, Davies S. Indicator-based audit of cataract surgery in four neighbouring hospitals in East Anglia. Eye 1995;9(Pt 6 Suppl):13-21.
  11. Hanning M, Lundstrom M. Assessment of the maximum waiting time guarantee for cataract surgery. The case of a Swedish policy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998;14:180-93.[Medline]




This Article
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bellan, L.
Right arrow Articles by Mathen, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bellan, L.
Right arrow Articles by Mathen, M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Quality improvement
Right arrow Other medicare
Right arrow Ophthalmology