Ophthalmology service recovery with 'general anaesthesia to local anaesthesia conversion' or GALA initiative: a new surgical service pilot.

We report on the establishment of "general anaesthesia (GA) to local anaesthesia (LA) conversion" or GALA initiative at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Through GALA initiative, long waiters for cataract surgery under GA or LA with intravenous sedation were counselled for LA surgery. With careful surgical planning and personalised solutions to LA barriers, LA-converted patients reported good visual and surgical experience outcomes. The GALA initiative reduced cataract surgery waiting times of participants by 11 weeks and increased GA list capacity by three to four theatre lists in its four months of pilot run. This initiative did not limit training opportunities for ophthalmology trainees whose training was affected significantly during the pandemic.

Naprapathy versus orthopaedic standard care for common musculoskeletal disorders: an 8-year follow-up of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain is among the most common reasons for seeking care, specialist competence for its treatment in primary care limited and waiting lists for orthopaedics often amongst the longest. Many referrals to orthopaedics do not concern disorders that benefit from surgery. Manual therapy is effective, yet not integrated in national health care systems, and there is a lack of research on other than neck and low back pain, and a lack of long-term follow-ups. The present study evaluates the long-term effects of a manual therapy (naprapathy) for common orthopaedic disorders. METHODS: An 8-year follow-up (96 months) of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of naprapathy (experimental group) versus standard orthopaedic care (control group) for non-surgical patients of working age with the most common musculoskeletal disorders on the waiting lists (n = 78). Bodily pain, physical function (SF36), Quality of life (QoL; SF6D), and data on health care utilization were collected. The treatments lasted from January 2007 to November 2007. RESULTS: N = 75 participants in the original study sample completed the 8-year follow-up. The differences in bodily pain (21.7 (95% CI: 9.1-34.3)), physical function (17.6 (6.7-28.4)), and QoLs (0.823 (95% CI: 0.785-0.862) compared with 0.713 (95% CI: 0.668-0.758)) were statistically significantly in favor of the experimental group (p-values < 0.01). After sensitivity analysis the experimental group had altogether 260 health care visits compared with 1161 in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Naprapathy is a continuously effective treatment. Together with earlier research our study suggests that specialized manual therapy should be considered when triaging patients with common non-surgical musculoskeletal disorders in national health care systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable, as per information given by ClinicalTrials.gov.

Is it safe yet? Patient readiness and perceptions about returning to hospital for planned orthopaedic care.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has necessitated significant changes to healthcare delivery but little is known regarding patient opinions of risks compared with benefits. This study investigates patient perceptions concerning attendance for planned orthopaedic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 250 adult patients from the elective orthopaedic waiting list at Cardiff and Vale University Health Board were telephoned during lockdown. They were risk stratified for COVID-19 based on British Orthopaedic Association guidance and a discussion was held to determine patient willingness to proceed with surgery. The primary outcome measure was patients' willingness to proceed. RESULTS: Of the total number telephoned, 196 patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 57.4 years; 129 patients were willing to attend for surgery, leaving over one-third wishing to cancel or defer. The most frequent reason given for not wishing to attend was fear of contracting COVID-19. There was a statistically significant difference in the willingness to proceed observed with increasing clinical risk (χ2(3) = 50.073, p = .000) with almost double the expected count of unwilling to proceed in the high and very high risk groups, equalled by half the expected count in the low risk group. DISCUSSION: This study illustrates the variable and personal decisions that patients are making about orthopaedic care because of COVID-19. It highlights the need for change to departmental processes regarding recommencement of planned surgical lists. It also reconfirms the importance of regular communication and shared decision making between a well-informed patient and a holistic orthopaedic team.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Alternative Care Provider Clinic for Severe Sleep-disordered Breathing.

Rationale: Lack of timely access to diagnosis and treatment of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) has sparked interest in using nonphysician providers. Previous studies of these alternative care providers (ACPs) excluded patients with more complicated forms of SDB and did not directly explore the impacts of a model incorporating ACPs on healthcare system performance, such as wait times.Objectives: To evaluate the use of ACPs in the management of patients with severe SDB from a clinical and system perspective.Methods: In this noninferiority study, patients with severe SDB (N = 156) were enrolled from October 2014 to July 2016 and randomized to either sleep physician management or management by ACP with same-day sleep physician review. Severe SDB was defined as one of 1) respiratory event index greater than 30/h, 2) mean nocturnal oxygen saturation less than 85%, and 3) arterial carbon dioxide greater than 45 mm Hg with respiratory event index greater than 15/h. The primary outcome was nightly positive airway pressure adherence at 3 months, using a noninferiority margin of 1 hour. Secondary outcomes included sleepiness, quality of life, patient satisfaction, wait times for diagnosis and treatment initiation, and demand for further testing and clinical assessment. Outcomes were evaluated using modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.Results: Care delivery using ACPs was indeterminate compared with sleep physician care with respect to treatment adherence, because the 95% confidence interval included the noninferiority margin of 1 hour (mean difference, -0.5 [-1.49 to 0.49] h). Patients in the ACP arm reported greater improvements in sleepiness and quality of life; wait times were shorter for initial assessment (28%) and treatment initiation (18%). There was no difference in demand for sleep testing or clinical follow-up. Per-protocol analysis revealed similar results.Conclusions: Management of severe SDB using ACPs was indeterminate compared with sleep physician care. The small decrease in adherence in the ACP arm was balanced by benefits in patient-reported outcomes and reduction in wait times. In systems with unacceptably long wait times for SDB diagnosis and treatment, a small decrease in treatment adherence, as was observed in this study, may be an acceptable trade-off to improve access to care for patients with severe SDB.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02191085).

Effect of a See and Treat clinic on skin cancer treatment time.

BACKGROUND: Many plastic surgery departments in Australasia have experienced increasing referrals for management of skin lesions. This has driven a demand for new strategies to decrease patient waiting time and administrative costs. The aim of this study was to determine if a purpose-built See and Treat skin cancer clinic could provide a faster skin cancer treatment pathway with comparable clinical outcomes and acceptability to patients. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of patients treated through the See and Treat clinic with a retrospective control cohort. The prospective 'See and Treat' cohort included a consecutive series of 106 patients, while the retrospective cohort included a consecutive series of 200 patients. Patient demographics, time from referral to surgery and operative measures were analysed. One hundred patients in the prospective cohort completed an anonymous satisfaction survey regarding their treatment. RESULTS: The average time from referral to surgery was reduced from 121 days in the retrospective cohort to 60 days in the See and Treat cohort (P < 0.001). Rates of complete excision of malignant and premalignant lesions were not different between the two groups, being 93% (178/191) and 91% (76/84), respectively (P = 0.609). Ninety-five percent (95/100) of patients were satisfied with their See and Treat experience overall. CONCLUSION: We show that a considerable reduction in the time between referral and surgery can be achieved through a See and Treat clinic without compromise of the success of surgical treatment. Moreover, such a treatment pathway has been shown to be acceptable, and largely preferable, to patients.

Waiting times for surgical and diagnostic procedures in public hospitals in Mexico / Tiempos de espera para procedimientos quirúrgicos y diagnósticos en hospitales públicos de México

Objective. A retrospective evaluation of waiting times for elective procedures was conducted in a sample of Mexican public hospitals from the following institutions: the Mexican Institute for Social Security (IMSS), the Institute for Social Security and Social Services for Civil Servants (ISSSTE) and the Ministry of Health (MoH). Our aim was to describe current waiting times and identify opportunities to redistribute service demand among public institutions. Materials and methods. We examined current waiting times and productivity for seven elective surgical and four diagnostic imaging procedures, selected on the basis of their relative frequency and comparability with other national health systems. Results. Mean waiting time for the seven surgical procedures in the three institutions was 14 weeks. IMSS and ISSSTE hospitals showed better performance (12 and 13 weeks) than the MoH hospitals (15 weeks). Mean waiting time for the four diagnostic procedures was 11 weeks. IMSS hospitals (10 weeks) showed better average waiting times than ISSSTE (12 weeks) and MoH hospitals (11 weeks). Conclusion. Substantial variations were revealed, not only among institutions but also within the same institution. These variations need to be addressed in order to improve patient satisfaction.

Objetivo. Se llevó a cabo una evaluación retrospectiva de los tiempos de espera para procedimientos electivos en una muestra de hospitales públicos en México de las siguientes instituciones: Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS), Instituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado (ISSSTE) y Secretaría de Salud (SS). El propósito era describir la situación actual en materia de tiempos de espera e identificar oportunidades de redistribución de la demanda de servicios entre instituciones públicas. Material y métodos. Se analizaron los tiempos de espera y la productividad para siete procedimientos quirúrgicos y cuatro procedimientos diagnósticos seleccionados sobre la base de su frecuencia relativa y comparabilidad con otros sistemas de salud nacionales. Resultados. El tiempo de espera promedio para los siete procedimientos quirúrgicos en las tres instituciones fue de 14 semanas. Los hospitales del IMSS y el ISSSTE mostraron un mejor desempeño (12 y 13 semanas) frente a los hospitales de la SS (15 semanas). El tiempo de espera promedio para los cuatro procedimientos diagnósticos fue de 11 semanas. Los hospitales del IMSS mostraron un tiempo de espera promedio mejor (10 semanas) que los hospitales del ISSSTE (12 semanas) y la SS (11 semanas). Conclusión. Se identificaron variaciones importantes no sólo entre instituciones sino también al interior de cada una de ellas. Estas variaciones deben atenderse para así mejorar la satisfacción de los usuarios de los servicios.