SurgicalWaitTimes.com

Ask your Physician to request “Next Available Surgeon” in their referral to a surgeon.

1. Dramatically Shorter Wait Times

• The single biggest impact is a shorter wait for both consultation and surgery.

• Many systems that use central triage (e.g., Alberta’s FAST program, Saskatchewan pooled referrals, Ontario central intake pilots) show that patients opting for “first available surgeon” can be seen weeks to months earlier than those requesting a specific surgeon.

• Wait time variation between surgeons in the same region can be 10–70+ weeks, so a pooled option significantly reduces bottlenecks.

Why?
Surgeon workloads differ. Some surgeons have long queues; others have immediate capacity. Pooling allows a patient to access the unused capacity in the system.

---

2. More Efficient Use of System Resources

When patients are allocated to the next surgeon with availability, health systems achieve:

• Better operating room utilization

• Lower idle surgical capacity

• More balanced caseloads across surgeons

This improves system throughput without adding new surgeons or OR time.

---

3. Reduced Condition Progression While Waiting

Shorter waits reduce clinically important risks:

• Worsening joint deformity or instability

• Increased pain and functional loss

• Muscle wasting, stiffness, gait deterioration

• Higher pre-operative frailty

• Greater reliance on analgesics, including opioids

For joint replacements, patients who wait longer often have worse pre-op function, which is associated with slower rehabilitation and sometimes poorer post-op outcomes.

---

4. Higher Patient Satisfaction (for Most Patients)

Research from multiple provinces shows:

• Patients given a choice (pick a surgeon OR pick next available) report higher satisfaction when they choose the earliest appointment.

• Many patients prioritize speed over a specific surgeon.

• Transparency—such as showing average wait times across all surgeons—improves trust and comfort with pooled referral systems.

---

5. No Difference in Clinical Outcomes When Care is Standardized

Where orthopaedic pathways are consistent (hip/knee/spine pathways, standardized implants, ERAS protocols):

• Post-operative outcomes are similar across surgeons in the same centre.

• Complication and revision rates do not differ meaningfully for most high-volume standardized procedures.

This makes “next available surgeon” very safe when pathways and quality controls are strong.

---

6. Potential Downsides

A few caveats:

• Some patients feel more comfortable with a surgeon they know or were referred to personally.

• Complex or unusual cases should be directed to surgeons with subspecialty expertise (e.g., revision arthroplasty, deformity correction, tumour, complex trauma).

• Communication differences between surgeons and teams may affect patient preference, even if outcomes are equivalent.

Because of this, pooled systems usually allow:

• Override for complex patients

• Option to switch surgeons after initial consultation if fit is poor

---

Bottom Line

Choosing “next available surgeon” generally leads to:

✓ Shorter wait for consult

✓ Shorter wait for surgery

✓ Less deterioration while waiting

✓ More efficient use of system resources

✓ Comparable clinical outcomes for standard orthopaedic procedures

It is typically one of the most powerful mechanisms for reducing surgical wait times in orthopaedics.

Comparison Table