Aims: This paper describes the rationale and methodology of a study assessing the reliability of tools for clinical prioritisation (Clinical Priority Assessment Criteria [CPAC]) of patients for elective surgery in New Zealand.
Methods: Surgeons from three specialties (general, vascular, and orthopaedic surgery) completed a computerised evaluation rating clinical vignettes across a range of diagnoses using several priority tools. The study design is described and an outline of the individual tool development and definitions is given.
Results: Of the 124 surgeons that participated in this study, 48% (60) were general surgeons, 21% (26) were vascular surgeons and 31% (38) were orthopaedic surgeons. The response rates in the first phase of data collection were 67%, 79%, and 63% for general, vascular, and orthopaedic surgery respectively. Completion rates were high with 100%, 93%, and 98% of the same groupings of surgeons completing the first round evaluations. A further 77% to 89% of the participants from the first round also completed the re-test evaluation.
Conclusion: This study indicates that assessment of the reliability of CPAC tools currently in use in New Zealand is feasible using a vignette-based approach. In the future, study designs that allow for some face-to-face contact may be preferable for achieving optimal response and completion rates among surgeons. Further work from this study will focus on the individual results for each specialty and examining whether altering ethnicity status in vignettes had any effect on scoring behaviour.