Presents policy alternatives to address underlying factors associated with ALC bed use.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly used as measures of effectiveness of interventions. To make the tools more useful, therapeutic thresholds known as minimally important differences have been developed. The objective of this study was to calculate minimally important differences for the domains of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score for hallux valgus surgery. Methods: The study was based on a retrospective analysis of patients newly scheduled for bunion correction surgery and completing patient-reported outcomes between October 2013 and January 2018. This study used anchor- and distribution-based approaches to calculate the minimally important difference for the instrument’s 5 domains. Confidence intervals were calculated for each approach. There were 91 participants included in the study. Results: Using anchor- and distribution-based approaches, the minimally important difference for the pain domain ranged from 5.8 to 10.2, from 0.3 to 6.9 for the symptoms domain, 8.3 to 10.3 for the activities of daily living domain, 7.4 to 11.1 for the quality of life domain, and from 7.0 to 15.7 for the sports and recreation domain. Small differences in the activities of daily living domain may be more clinically important for patients with better function. Discussion: The range of minimally important difference values for each domain indicate how the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score corresponded to bunion correction surgery. The sports and recreation domain showed considerable variability in the range of values and may be associated with the domain’s lack of responsiveness. Overall, most minimally important difference values for the domains of FAOS ranged from above 4 to below 16. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative series.

Background: Depression and chronic pain are debilitating disorders that co-exist with many chronic diseases. Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is no exception. Nonetheless, little is known about the association between these co-related conditions and the treatment of CRS. The objective of this study is to measure outcomes following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in CRS patients reporting significant pre-operative depression and pain. Methods: This is a prospective longitudinal cohort study examining patients with CRS who had failed maximal medical therapy and subsequently underwent ESS. Participants completed a several patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments pre-operatively and 6 months post-operatively. The PROs included the Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) measuring symptoms of depression and an assessment of chronic pain using the pain intensity (P), interference with enjoyment of life (E) and general (G) activity instrument, the PEG instrument. Results: The study had 142 participants complete their pre-operative and post-operative surveys. The participation rate was 40.1% among eligible patients. The prevalence of at least moderate depression was 22 patients (15.5%) among participants. Compared with non-depressed participants, the pre-operative sino-nasal disease burden and pain scores were higher among depressed participants ( p < 0.001) and the gain in health following surgery was smaller ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Pre-operative disease burden is higher among depressed patients. Post-operative gains in sino-nasal quality of life attributable to endoscopic sinus surgery were significantly smaller among depressed participants. Pre-operative screening for depression could identify opportunities for medical intervention and improve outcomes among CRS patients.

Having a regular primary care provider (i.e., family physician or nurse practitioner) is widely considered to be a prerequisite for obtaining healthcare that is timely, accessible, continuous, comprehensive, and well-coordinated with other parts of the healthcare system. Yet, 4.6 million Canadians, approximately 15% of Canada’s population, are unattached; that is, they do not have a regular primary care provider. To address the critical need for attachment, especially for more vulnerable patients, six Canadian provinces have implemented centralized waiting lists for unattached patients. These waiting lists centralize unattached patients’ requests for a primary care provider in a given territory and match patients with providers. From the little information we have on each province’s centralized waiting list, we know the way they work varies significantly from province to province. The main objective of this study is to compare the different models of centralized waiting lists for unattached patients implemented in six provinces of Canada to each other and to available scientific knowledge to make recommendations on ways to improve their design in an effort to increase attachment of patients to a primary care provider. A logic analysis approach developed in three steps will be used. Step 1: build logic models that describe each province’s centralized waiting list through interviews with key stakeholders in each province; step 2: develop a conceptual framework, separate from the provincially informed logic models, that identifies key characteristics of centralized waiting lists for unattached patients and factors influencing their implementation through a literature review and interviews with experts; step 3: compare the logic models to the conceptual framework to make recommendations to improve centralized waiting lists in different provinces during a pan Canadian face-to-face exchange with decision-makers, clinicians and researchers. This study is based on an inter-provincial learning exchange approach where we propose to compare centralized waiting lists and analyze variations in strategies used to increase attachment to a regular primary care provider. Fostering inter-provincial healthcare systems connectivity to improve centralized waiting lists’ practices across Canada can lever attachment to a regular provider for timely access to continuous, comprehensive and coordinated healthcare for all Canadians and particular for those who are vulnerable.