The heads of the surgical departments and Anaesthesiology of the Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal in Madrid have discussed 23 September 2026 published a joint statement. In it, they defend reviewing and, where necessary, changing priority levels on the waiting lists, if the original classification does not meet the clinical criteria of the relevant specialties. The aim, they said, was to ensure equal treatment and avoid disadvantaging patients on waiting lists.
The statement follows reports of changes to classifications between 28 February and 14 March 2025 in Orthopaedics and Traumatology. According to the reports, 57 patients were downgraded from “preferential” to “normal”, extending the maximum waiting time for surgery from 90 to 180 days. According to various media outlets, this account is supported by internal documents. The department heads’ statement refers generally to the responsibility to review clinical priorities, but does not name individual cases or specific decision-making processes.
Criticism centred on claims by staff that some reclassifications were made without consulting the clinicians responsible for the operations. The consumer organisation Facua and the regional party Más Madrid said they had reported the matter to the Public Prosecutor’s Office over suspicions of abuse of office and forgery of documents. According to reports, the regional government referred to internal reviews. No complete, publicly available official records of the changes have yet been released, leaving some details of the process unclear.
In its latest statement, the hospital stresses that admission to waiting lists and urgency classifications are based on clinical and care-related criteria and are determined by medical specialists. The signatories also emphasise their duty to revise these classifications if new information emerges or they depart from the criteria. The statement makes no claims about administrative directives or performance incentives beyond clinical considerations.
The case raises a fundamental question about hospital organisation: legally permissible changes to clinical priorities are intended to ensure transparency and fairness. However, gaps in decision-making processes and documentation can create the impression of administrative interference. Whether this suspicion is confirmed depends on the ongoing reviews. Until then, the department heads defend the use of priority reviews, while patients and some opposition figures question how they were applied at Ramón y Cajal in February and March 2025.
Editor: Clara Simonichek (Article created with AI assistance).