Allocation of Treatment Slots in Elective Mental Health Care—Are Waiting Lists the Ethically Most Appropriate Option?

Waiting lists are a standard approach to managing excess demand in elective health care. While waiting times are an important policy issue, the ethical validity of the first come, first served (FCFS) principle as such is rarely questioned. Presenting a psychiatric day hospital where all eligible patients have roughly equal claims as a case study, we criticize the reflex use of FCFS for allocation of elective psychiatric care, consider conditions under which this may not be the optimal strategy, and discuss alternatives. We conclude that in our example prioritizing more recent referrals (last come, first served [LCFS]) makes more sense, clinically and ethically. Where several referrals arrive (near-)simultaneously under LCFS, we propose that a higher level of scrutiny be applied to detect possible good reasons for prioritizing one of them. We believe that our observations can be applied to other health care settings that share relevant characteristics with our case.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The American Journal of Bioethics
Published
2024-10-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2416128
Citations
9
Primary Topic
Psychiatric care and mental health services
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.75
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Allocation of Treatment Slots in Elective Mental Health Care—Are Waiting Lists the Ethically Most Appropriate Option?

Ralf J. Jox, Thomas Haustein
9 citations
The American Journal of Bioethics
Psychiatric care and mental health services
5.75
article

Allocation of Treatment Slots in Elective Mental Health Care—Are Waiting Lists the Ethically Most Appropriate Option?

Ralf J. Jox, Thomas Haustein
article en
9 citations

Abstract

Waiting lists are a standard approach to managing excess demand in elective health care. While waiting times are an important policy issue, the ethical validity of the first come, first served (FCFS) principle as such is rarely questioned. Presenting a psychiatric day hospital where all eligible patients have roughly equal claims as a case study, we criticize the reflex use of FCFS for allocation of elective psychiatric care, consider conditions under which this may not be the optimal strategy, and discuss alternatives. We conclude that in our example prioritizing more recent referrals (last come, first served [LCFS]) makes more sense, clinically and ethically. Where several referrals arrive (near-)simultaneously under LCFS, we propose that a higher level of scrutiny be applied to detect possible good reasons for prioritizing one of them. We believe that our observations can be applied to other health care settings that share relevant characteristics with our case.

The American Journal of BioethicsVol. 25(11)
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH), University of Lausanne (CH)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Psychiatric care and mental health services
5.75
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Allocation of Treatment Slots in Elective Mental Health Care—Are Waiting Lists the Ethically Most Appropriate Option? — Ralf J. Jox, Thomas Haustein · The American Journal of Bioethics (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS