Explore the vast range of titles available.

Canadian health systems fare poorly in providing timely access to elective surgical care, which is crucial for quality, trust, and satisfaction. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of surgical wait times for adults receiving non-urgent cataract surgery, knee arthroplasty, hip arthroplasty, gallbladder surgery, and non-cancer uterine surgery in Ontario, Canada, between 2013 and 2019. We obtained data from the Wait Times Information System (WTIS) database. Inter- and intra-hospital and surgeon variations in wait time were described graphically with caterpillar plots. We used non-nested 3-level hierarchical random effects models to estimate variation partition coefficients, quantifying the proportion of wait time variance attributable to surgeons and hospitals. A total of 942,605 procedures at 107 healthcare facilities, conducted by 1,834 surgeons, were included in the analysis. We observed significant intra- and inter-provider variations in wait times across all five surgical procedures. Inter-facility median wait time varied between six-fold for gallbladder surgery and 15-fold for knee arthroplasty. Inter-surgeon variation was more pronounced, ranging from a 17-fold median wait time difference for cataract surgery to a 216-fold difference for non-cancer uterine surgery. The proportion of variation in wait times attributable to facilities ranged from 6.2% for gallbladder surgery to 23.0% for cataract surgery. In comparison, surgeon-related variation ranged from 16.0% for non-cancer uterine surgery to 28.0% for cataract surgery. There is extreme variability in surgical wait times for five common, high-volume, non-urgent surgical procedures. Strategies to address surgical wait times must address the variation between service providers through better coordination of supply and demand. Approaches such as single-entry models could improve surgical system performance.

Long wait times for scheduled surgery are a major problem in Canadian health systems. We sought to determine the extent to which single-entry referral models (next available consultation), team-based care models (next available surgery regardless of consulting surgeon), or both could affect wait times for consultations and surgery. We performed a discrete-event simulation study of wait times for consultations and surgeries for knee and hip joint replacement in Ontario’s 5 postal regions using prospectively collected data on surgical wait times. We simulated the effects of coordinated referral models on the wait time for consultation (wait 1) and surgery (wait 2). Coordinated models led to larger reductions in high-outlier wait times (as reflected by the 90th percentile and the percentage of patients exceeding wait-time targets) than on median wait times when compared with the status quo. Single-entry referral models largely influenced wait 1, and team-based models of care affected only wait 2. Fully integrated models incorporating both single-entry referral and team-based care largely prevented patients from exceeding both wait-1 and wait-2 targets; the percentage of patients exceeding wait-1 targets in these models was 0% in all regions, and the percentage exceeding wait-2 targets was 0% except for Ontario West (2.0%, from 35.7% at baseline), East (1.1%, from 22.7% at baseline), and North (1.0%, from 25.1% at baseline). Coordinated referral and practice models improve access to scheduled surgery in Canadian health systems. Implementation of these models could largely eliminate prolonged wait times for joint replacement surgery in Ontario.

Background Quality in health care can be evaluated using quality indicators (QIs). Elements contained in the surgical operative report are potential sources for QI data, but little is known about the completeness of the narrative operative report (NR). We evaluated the completeness of the NR for patients undergoing a pancreaticoduodenectomy. Methods We reviewed NRs for patients undergoing a pancreaticoduodenectomy over a 1-year period. We extracted 79 variables related to patient and narrator characteristics, process of care measures, surgical technique and oncology-related outcomes by document analysis. Data were coded and evaluated for completeness. Results We analyzed 74 NRs. The median number of variables reported was 43.5 (range 13–54). Variables related to surgical technique were most complete. Process of care and oncology-related variables were often omitted. Completeness of the NR was associated with longer operative duration. Conclusion The NRs were often incomplete and of poor quality. Important elements, including process of care and oncology-related data, were frequently missing. Thus, the NR is an inadequate data source for QI. Development and use of alternative reporting methods, including standardized synoptic operative reports, should be encouraged to improve documentation of care and serve as a measure of quality of surgical care.

Some cardiovascular devices are licensed based on limited evidence, potentially exposing patients to devices that are not safe or effective. Research is needed to ascertain if the same is true of other types of medical devices. Knee arthroplasty is a widely-used surgical procedure yet implant failures are not uncommon. The purpose of this study was to characterize available evidence on the safety and effectiveness of knee implants. A review of primary studies included in health technology assessments (HTA) on total (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Biotechnology & BioEngineering Abstracts were searched from 2005 to 2014, plus journal tables of contents and 32 HTA web sites. Patients were aged 18 and older who underwent primary TKA or UKA assessed in cohort or randomized controlled studies. Summary statistics were used to report study characteristics. A total of 265 eligible primary studies published between 1986 and 2014 involving 59,217 patients were identified in 10 HTAs (2 low, 7 moderate, 1 high risk of bias). Most evaluated TKA (198, 74.5%). The quality of evidence in primary studies was limited. Most studies were industry-funded (23.8%) or offered no declaration of funding or conflict of interest (44.9%); based on uncontrolled single cohorts (58.5%), enrolled fewer than 100 patients (66.4%), and followed patients for 2 years or less (UKA: single cohort 29.8%, comparative cohort 16.7%, randomized trial 25.0%; TKA: single cohort 25.0%, comparative cohort 31.4%, randomized trial 48.6%). Furthermore, most devices were evaluated in only one study (55.3% TKA implants, 61.1% UKA implants). Patients, physicians, hospitals and payers rely on poor-quality evidence to support decisions about knee implants. Further research is needed to explore how decisions about the use of devices are currently made, and how the evidence base for device safety and effectiveness can be strengthened.

Background Paucity of RCTs of non-drug technologies lead to widespread dependence on non-randomized studies. Relationship between nonrandomized study design attributes and biased estimates of treatment effects are poorly understood. Our purpose was to estimate the bias associated with specific nonrandomized study attributes among studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. Results We included 6 RCTs and 87 nonrandomized studies. Surgical risk scores were similar for comparison groups in RCTs, but were higher for patients having transcatheter aortic valve implantation in nonrandomized studies. Nonrandomized studies underestimated the benefit of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with RCTs. For example, nonrandomized studies without adjustment estimated a higher risk of postoperative mortality for transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (OR 1.43 [95% CI 1.26 to 1.62]) than high quality RCTs (OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.54 to 1.11). Nonrandomized studies using propensity score matching (OR 1.13 [95% CI 0.85 to 1.52]) and regression modelling (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.57 to 0.81]) to adjust results estimated treatment effects closer to high quality RCTs. Nonrandomized studies describing losses to follow-up estimated treatment effects that were significantly closer to high quality RCT than nonrandomized studies that did not. Conclusion Studies with different attributes produce different estimates of treatment effects. Study design attributes related to the completeness of follow-up may explain biased treatment estimates in nonrandomized studies, as in the case of aortic valve replacement where high-risk patients were preferentially selected for the newer (transcatheter) procedure.

BackgroundLaparoscopic Heller myotomy is an effective treatment for achalasia. There are little data on the safety and feasibility of same-day discharge after laparoscopic Heller myotomy.ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe the experience with same-day discharge after laparoscopic Heller myotomy at one hospital.MethodsA retrospective cohort study including all patients who underwent laparoscopic Heller myotomy between 2007 and 2016 at University Health Network (UHN), Toronto, Canada. There was no consent required as the study was retrospective study. This study was approved by the UHN IRB. Planned same-day discharge patients were compared to planned inpatient with respect to post-op complications, length of stay, and number of emergency visits.ResultsA total of 209 patients were identified. Same-day discharge was planned in 67 (33.5%) cases compared to 133 (66.5%) cases that were planned for inpatient. The study population was 49% male. On average, inpatients had 2.3 pre-operative comorbidities and same-day discharge patients had 1.6 pre-operative comorbidities. The average length of stay for the inpatient group was 3.5 days. Among the same-day surgery group, 15 had an unplanned admission following surgery (22%). Of those who were admitted, the average length of stay was 1.27 days. Only 1 same-day discharge was readmitted after hospital discharge, while 4 in inpatient group were readmitted. The post-operative complication rate was (15%) 20 of inpatient compared to four (6.0%) of same-day discharge. Number of emergency visits for inpatient group were 7 (5.3%) compared to 3 (4.5%) for same-day discharge group. There was one mortality case in inpatient group due to post-op complication.ConclusionSame-day surgery is feasible for laparoscopic Heller myotomy, with a similar complication and readmission rate as inpatient surgery.

Canadian health systems fare poorly in providing timely access to elective surgical care, which is crucial for quality, trust, and satisfaction. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of surgical wait times for adults receiving non-urgent cataract surgery, knee arthroplasty, hip arthroplasty, gallbladder surgery, and non-cancer uterine surgery in Ontario, Canada, between 2013 and 2019. We obtained data from the Wait Times Information System (WTIS) database. Inter- and intra-hospital and surgeon variations in wait time were described graphically with caterpillar plots. We used non-nested 3-level hierarchical random effects models to estimate variation partition coefficients, quantifying the proportion of wait time variance attributable to surgeons and hospitals. A total of 942,605 procedures at 107 healthcare facilities, conducted by 1,834 surgeons, were included in the analysis. We observed significant intra- and inter-provider variations in wait times across all five surgical procedures. Inter-facility median wait time varied between six-fold for gallbladder surgery and 15-fold for knee arthroplasty. Inter-surgeon variation was more pronounced, ranging from a 17-fold median wait time difference for cataract surgery to a 216-fold difference for non-cancer uterine surgery. The proportion of variation in wait times attributable to facilities ranged from 6.2% for gallbladder surgery to 23.0% for cataract surgery. In comparison, surgeon-related variation ranged from 16.0% for non-cancer uterine surgery to 28.0% for cataract surgery. There is extreme variability in surgical wait times for five common, high-volume, non-urgent surgical procedures. Strategies to address surgical wait times must address the variation between service providers through better coordination of supply and demand. Approaches such as single-entry models could improve surgical system performance.

Canadian health systems fare poorly in providing timely access to elective surgical care, which is crucial for quality, trust, and satisfaction. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of surgical wait times for adults receiving non-urgent cataract surgery, knee arthroplasty, hip arthroplasty, gallbladder surgery, and non-cancer uterine surgery in Ontario, Canada, between 2013 and 2019. We obtained data from the Wait Times Information System (WTIS) database. Inter- and intra-hospital and surgeon variations in wait time were described graphically with caterpillar plots. We used non-nested 3-level hierarchical random effects models to estimate variation partition coefficients, quantifying the proportion of wait time variance attributable to surgeons and hospitals. A total of 942,605 procedures at 107 healthcare facilities, conducted by 1,834 surgeons, were included in the analysis. We observed significant intra- and inter-provider variations in wait times across all five surgical procedures. Inter-facility median wait time varied between six-fold for gallbladder surgery and 15-fold for knee arthroplasty. Inter-surgeon variation was more pronounced, ranging from a 17-fold median wait time difference for cataract surgery to a 216-fold difference for non-cancer uterine surgery. The proportion of variation in wait times attributable to facilities ranged from 6.2% for gallbladder surgery to 23.0% for cataract surgery. In comparison, surgeon-related variation ranged from 16.0% for non-cancer uterine surgery to 28.0% for cataract surgery. There is extreme variability in surgical wait times for five common, high-volume, non-urgent surgical procedures. Strategies to address surgical wait times must address the variation between service providers through better coordination of supply and demand. Approaches such as single-entry models could improve surgical system performance.

Background: Long wait times for scheduled surgery are a major problem in Canadian health systems. We sought to determine the extent to which single-entry referral models (next available consultation), team-based care models (next available surgery regardless of consulting surgeon), or both could affect wait times for consultations and surgery. Methods: We performed a discreteevent simulation study of wait times for consultations and surgeries for knee and hip joint replacement in Ontario's 5 postal regions using prospectively collected data on surgical wait times. We simulated the effects of coordinated referral models on the wait time for consultation (wait 1) and surgery (wait 2). Results: Coordinated models led to larger reductions in high-outlier wait times (as reflected by the 90th percentile and the percentage of patients exceeding wait-time targets) than on median wait times when compared with the status quo. Single-entry referral models largely influenced wait 1, and team-based models of care affected only wait 2. Fully integrated models incorporating both single-entry referral and team-based care largely prevented patients from exceeding both wait-1 and wait-2 targets; the percentage of patients exceeding wait-1 targets in these models was 0% in all regions, and the percentage exceeding wait-2 targets was 0% except for Ontario West (2.0%, from 35.7% at baseline), East (1.1%, from 22.7% at baseline), and North (1.0%, from 25.1% at baseline). Interpretation: Coordinated referral and practice models improve access to scheduled surgery in Canadian health systems. Implementation of these models could largely eliminate prolonged wait times for joint replacement surgery in Ontario.

Interpretation: Coordinated referral and practice models improve access to scheduled surgery in Canadian health systems. Implementation of these models could largely eliminate prolonged wait times for joint replacement surgery in Ontario.