[Clinical and economic impact of an ambulatory cataract surgery center without anesthesia in an area with poor ophthalmologic coverage]. / Impact médico-économique d'un centre de chirurgie ambulatoire de la cataracte sans parcours anesthésique dans un territoire en tension.

INTRODUCTION: The Ambulatory Clinic for Cataract Surgery (CACC) is a public department of the Bourges Medical Center, with a fast-track protocol without perioperative anesthesia care launched in 2015. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of the CACC in terms of access to cataract surgery. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients undergoing cataract surgery between 2012 and 2018. Data were collected from the French PMSI database. In order to evaluate the impact of the CACC, the surgical activity and change in indicators of patient flow and usage, as well as clinical and economic factors were analyzed. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2018, with the same number of ophthalmologists, surgical activity increased by 50.2% in the Cher (vs. a mean increase of 22.7% in France). The patient loss ratio decreased by 5.9 points, the attraction and self-sufficiency ratios increased by 2.3 and 8.6 points respectively. The standardized rate of healthcare utilization for cataract surgery increased by 4.3 points (from 11.6 to 15.9 surgeries per 1000 inhabitants). As a result, Cher became the second highest French Department in 2018 in terms of utilization rate despite its 96th place out of 109 Departments in terms of density of ophthalmologists. CONCLUSION: The ambulatory cataract surgery center without anesthesia for selected patients might represent a solution in medical deserts to improve access to cataract surgery without increasing costs.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Jail-Based Competency Evaluation and Restoration.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit is the largest of the federal appeals courts, encompassing the states of Alaska, Washington, and Oregon to the north, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands to the west, California and Arizona to the west and southwest, along with the three intermountain states of Idaho, Montana, and Nevada. The landmass within the Ninth Circuit represents great diversity of geography, climate, population density, and cultural and political traditions. This article considers two landmark Ninth Circuit decisions, one from Oregon and the other from Washington, two states that share geography, culture, and political orientation. Informed by these decisions, we consider how the Ninth Circuit might view the jail-based competency evaluation and restoration programs in the state of Arizona. We explore: the due process rights of jail detainees who are awaiting an evaluation of trial competency; and the time necessary for admission to, and the adequacy of, Arizona's jail-based competency restoration programs after a finding of incompetency.

[A "fast track" to improve management of neovascular age related macular degeneration]. / Un « circuit court ¼ pour améliorer la prise en charge des patients atteints de dégénérescence maculaire liée à l'âge néovasculaire.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of a fast track for management of patients with neovascular age- related macular degeneration (nARMD) treated by intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF. PATIENTS: The records of 100 patients in the chronic maintenance phase of intravitreal anti-VEGF followed in the fast track and 63 patients followed in the standard protocol for at least 12 months were retrospectively analyzed. METHOD: Patients in the fast track underwent visual acuity (VA) testing by ETDRS, optical coherence tomography (OCT) and a physician assessment. The injection was performed the same day whenever possible. The primary endpoint to evaluate patient adherence was the time between the ideal date of visit or injection prescribed by the physician and the actual date of administration. RESULTS: The mean time between the ideal date of visit or injection prescribed by the physician and the actual date of administration was 4.1±7.5 days for the patients followed in the fast track and 5.6±18.7 days for the patients followed in the standard protocol. Mean VA remained stable for the patients followed in the fast track: 20/50 (20/800 to 20/20) at baseline vs. 20/50 (20/800 to 20/16) at the conclusion of follow-up. It dropped from 40/50 at baseline to 20/63 at the conclusion of follow-up for the patients followed in the standard protocol. CONCLUSION: In the context of a fast track, it was possible to improve the adherence of nARMD patients and maintain their VA gain or stabilization achieved after the induction phase.