Perspective on Intradiscal Therapies for Lumbar Discogenic Pain: State of the Science, Knowledge Gaps, and Imperatives for Clinical Adoption.

Specific clinical diagnostic criteria have established a consensus for defining patients with lumbar discogenic pain. However, if conservative medical management fails, these patients have few treatment options short of surgery involving discectomy often coupled with fusion or arthroplasty. There is a rapidly-emerging research effort to fill this treatment gap with intradiscal therapies that can be delivered minimally-invasively via fluoroscopically guided injection without altering the normal anatomy of the affected vertebral motion segment. Viable candidate products to date have included mesenchymal stromal cells, platelet-rich plasma, nucleus pulposus structural allograft, and other cell-based compositions. The objective of these products is to repair, supplement, and restore the damaged intervertebral disc as well as retard further degeneration. In doing so, the intervention is meant to eliminate the source of discogenic pain and avoid surgery. Methodologically rigorous studies are rare, however, and based on the best clinical evidence, the safety as well as the magnitude and duration of clinical efficacy remain difficult to estimate. Further, we summarize the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) guidance regarding the interpretation of the minimal manipulation and homologous use criteria, which is central to designating these products as a tissue or as a drug/device/biologic. We also provide perspectives on the core evidence and knowledge gaps associated with intradiscal therapies, propose imperatives for evaluating effectiveness of these treatments and highlight several new technologies on the horizon.

Improving food insecurity screening across a health system throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Food insecurity has direct and indirect negative outcomes on the physical and mental health of children, with impacts throughout adult life. Rates of food insecurity have increased dramatically since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends paediatricians screen and intervene to address food insecurity. We aimed to increase the percentage of patient encounters with food insecurity screening completion at the paediatric medical home from 0% to 85% by July 2020 with extension to the paediatric emergency department (ED) and paediatric specialty clinic in the following year. METHODS: This multicentre project occurred in three sites within our health system: a teaching safety-net, paediatric medical home; a paediatric ED; and five divisions within paediatric specialty medical clinics. A screening tool was created using the validated Hunger Vital Sign Questionnaire. A standard screening, documentation and referral process was developed. The Model for Improvement was used testing changes via Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. RESULTS: The percentage of households screened for food insecurity increased from a median of 0% to 30% for all sites combined. There was significant variability in screening with the ED screening a median of 24% and the medical home screening 80% by the end of the study period. A total of 9842 households (20.9%) screened were food insecure. During the study period, 895 families with 3925 household members received 69 791 pounds of food from our primary community resource using our clinic's food prescription. Of these families, 44% (398) also qualified for the US Department of Agriculture programme ensuring ongoing food distribution up to twice a month. DISCUSSION: Using quality improvement methodology to address a critical community need, we implemented food insecurity screening across a hospital system including multiple sites and specialties and provided critical resources to households in need.

Gastroscopy for dyspepsia: Understanding primary care and gastroenterologist mental models of practice: A cognitive task analysis approach.

Background: Gastroscopy to investigate dyspepsia without alarm symptoms rarely results in clinically actionable findings or sustained health-related quality-of-life improvements among patients aged 18-60 years and is, therefore, not recommended. Despite this, referrals for and performance of gastroscopy among this patient population remain high. The purpose of this study was to understand family physicians' and gastroenterologists' mental models of dyspepsia and the drivers behind referring or performing gastroscopy. Methods: Cognitive task analysis routine critical decision method interviews with family physicians (n = 8) and gastroenterologists (n = 4). Results: Family physicians and gastroenterologists hold rich mental models of dyspepsia that rely on sensemaking; however, gaps in information continuity affect their ability to plan and coordinate patient care. Drivers behind decisions to refer or perform gastroscopy were: eliminating risk for serious pathology, providing reassurance, perceived preference by patients to receive information and reassurance from gastroenterologists, maintaining relationships with patients, and saving costs to the health system. Conclusions: Family physicians refer for dyspepsia when they are seeking support from gastroenterologists, they believe that alternative factors may be impacting the patient's health or view it as a cost-saving measure. Likewise, gastroenterologists perform gastroscopy for dyspepsia when they perceive it as a cost-saving measure, they want to support their primary care colleagues and provide their colleagues and patients with reassurance. An improved degree of communication between speciality and primary care could allow for continuity in the transfer of information about patients and reduce referrals for dyspepsia.