“They Are Not Going to Be Happyâ€: An Ethnographic Study of the Prioritization of Patients Awaiting Elective Surgery in an Academic Hospital in the Netherlands

Philipa Mos, Bert de Graaff, Michelle Heijke, Hester Lingsma, Robert Jan Baatenburg de Jong and Vivian Reckers-Droog
Additional contact information
Philipa Mos: Department of Health Law & Ethics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Bert de Graaff: Department of Health Care Governance, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Michelle Heijke: Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Hester Lingsma: Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Robert Jan Baatenburg de Jong: Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Vivian Reckers-Droog: Department of Health Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Medical Decision Making, 2026, vol. 46, issue 4, 480-488

Abstract: Background To reduce variation in waiting time for elective surgery, a Dutch academic hospital introduced a classification system based on urgency scores to standardize decision making. Physicians, however, retain clinical discretion in assigning urgency scores. This facilitates the provision of personalized and efficient care but may also create variation between patients and lack of transparency. The aim of this study was to describe the prioritization of patients awaiting elective surgery, including the use of urgency scores, and to explore explanations for discrepancies between assigned scores and actual waiting times. Methods We conducted an ethnographic study combining interviews with physicians and observations of elective surgery planners in the academic hospital. Data were analyzed thematically, guided by 3 sensitizing concepts: professional autonomy, emotions, and traditions. Results The prioritization of patients awaiting elective surgery begins with physicians’ assessment of urgency and concludes with planners drafting the schedule. The assessment is guided by clinical parameters, patient- and physician-related factors, and logistical constraints. Importantly, the prioritization of patients for elective surgery is shaped by subjective and affective considerations, customary decision-making practices, as well as the considerable professional autonomy of physicians and planners. Conclusions Standardized prioritization tools, such as urgency scores, may reduce unjustified variation in waiting times, but initial resistance to their implementation can hamper their use in decision-making practice. Moreover, such tools alone may fail to capture the complexity of clinical practice and the importance of the expertise and experience of physicians and planners therein. Rather than relying solely on stricter adherence to urgency scores, prioritization processes may be strengthened by facilitating communication and feedback exchanges to support a more integrated and context-specific approach that considers the complexity of clinical practice. Highlights Standardized decision-making tools are implemented to standardize and support the prioritization of patients awaiting elective surgery. Prioritization decisions are made by different professionals, and nonclinical factors that include subjective perceptions and logistic constraints may guide these decisions. Standardized tools inadequately capture the complexity of clinical decision making and the professional autonomy physicians and planners.

Keywords: decision support techniques; elective surgical procedures; professional autonomy; waiting lists (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X261422220 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:46:y:2026:i:4:p:480-488

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X261422220

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().