ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In February 2006, a hernia clinic was established at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia. It was based on a group model of care and was established to increase effective use of resources to reduce waiting times. We conducted a survey of patients referred to the hernia clinic to determine compliance. METHODS: We developed and mailed a questionnaire to all patients who had surgery after assessment at the hernia clinic. Data were analyzed for the entire study group and for 2 subgroups: patients in group I had the same surgeon for assessment and surgery, whereas patients in group II had a different surgeon for assessment and surgery. Differences between subgroups were assessed using the 2-tailed Fisher exact test. Waiting times were recorded. RESULTS: In all, 94 patients responded to the survey. Of these, 67% had the same surgeon for assessment and surgery, and 31% had a different surgeon; 2% were not sure. Two-thirds were comfortable having their surgery performed by a surgeon whom they met the day of surgery. Most patients had confidence in the competence of any surgeon and considered service to be better and faster in a specialized centre. Most felt that a group of surgeons providing hernia care uses resources more effectively. The waiting times from referral to initial consult decreased from 208 (standard deviation [SD] 139) days in 2007 to 59 (SD 70) days in 2009. CONCLUSION: Patient compliance with a group model of care for hernia surgery is high.
Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities/organization & administration , Hernia/diagnosis , Herniorrhaphy/methods , Models, Organizational , Patient Compliance/statistics & numerical data , Waiting Lists , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Hernia/epidemiology , Herniorrhaphy/adverse effects , Humans , Male , Monitoring, Physiologic/methods , Nova Scotia , Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data , Physician-Patient Relations , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/organization & administration , Quality of Health Care/organization & administration , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
The Pipeline Embolization Device (ev3 Endovascular Inc, Plymouth, Minnesota) is a new endovascular device designed to exclude suitable intracranial aneurysms. A 56-year-old woman presented with a symptomatic 4.1-cm splenic artery aneurysm (SAA) that was successfully managed with a two-staged treatment plan involving selective segmental splenic artery embolization and subsequent deployment of a Pipeline Embolization Device across the aneurysm neck to exclude the aneurysm and maintain splenic perfusion.
Subject(s)
Aneurysm/therapy , Embolization, Therapeutic/instrumentation , Splenic Artery , Aneurysm/diagnostic imaging , Angiography , Equipment Design , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Radiography, Interventional , Tomography, X-Ray ComputedABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Health Canada states that waiting list information and management systems in Canada are woefully inadequate, especially for elective surgical procedures. Understanding the reasons for waiting is paramount to achieving fairness and equity. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of demographic and clinical factors and surgeon volume on waiting times for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS: We comprehensively applied a wait-list database for all surgical procedures across a division of general surgery and performed a chart review of all patients undergoing LC in 2002 to collect additional demographic and clinical data. We excluded patients undergoing LC on an emergent basis or as a secondary procedure. For each patient, we calculated 2 time intervals: time from the receipt of consult to the surgical consult (interval A) and time from the surgical consult to the LC (interval B). Surgeons were categorized a priori into low- and high-volume groups, based on the median number of procedures they had performed. All analyses examining waiting times were performed with nonparametric methods. RESULTS: The study cohort included 294 patients; most (94.6%) underwent LC for biliary colic. The median waiting times for interval A and interval B were 22 days and 50 days, respectively. No associations were identified between any of the examined waiting times, sex, diagnosis or Charlston Comorbidity Index. High surgeon volume was associated with longer waiting times for interval A (median 26 v. 19 d; p=0.04) and interval B (median 58 v. 35 d; p=0.003) and was also associated with a greater number of episodes of biliary colic (2.7 v. 2.0; p=0.03). CONCLUSION: There is significant variability in specific waiting times for LC, which appears to be associated with surgeon volume. Better prioritization of patients undergoing nonemergent LC is required to improve patient care.
