The role of ENT surgeons in snoring assessment : some prospective preliminary evidence

Objectives: To determine (i) the prevalence of unsuspected upper aerodigestive tract disease in snorers, (ii) the diagnostic yield of routine flexible endoscopy and (iii) the relationship between symptoms of upper aerodigestive tract disease and examination findings in snorers. Design: Prospective analytical cohort study. Setting: Snoring clinic in Secondary Care Otolaryngologycentre. Participants: Ninety-three patients referred with disruptive snoring.Main outcome measures: A structured history ofupper aerodigestive tract symptoms was obtained byclinic interview. All patients underwent detailed ENTexamination. Univariate analysis was undertaken on data collected. Results: The prevalence of oropharyngeal and laryngealpathology in the cohort was 3%. No unsuspected upper aerodigestive tract pathology was found on routineflexible endoscopy. A history of Hard Nasal Symptoms was an accurate predictor of underlying nasal pathology. Conclusion: The authors propose that the detailed examination of snorers by ENT specialists is unnecessary in the absence of Hard Nasal Symptoms, hoarseness orpain. We propose that a system of triage based on patient history could help identify the minority of snorers who require specialist assessment

Implementing system-wide risk stratification approaches: a review of critical success and failure factors

An Evidence Check rapid review brokered by the Sax Institute for the NSW Agency for Clinical Innovatio

Effectiveness of the advisory display SmartPilot® view in the assessment of anesthetic depth in low risk gynecological surgery patients: a randomized controlled trial

Background: Assessment of appropriate anesthetic depth is crucial to prevent harm to patients. Unnecessary deep anesthesia can be harmful, potentially causing acute renal failure, myocardial injury, delirium, and an increased mortality rate. Conversely, too light anesthesia combined with muscle relaxants can result in intraoperative patient awareness and lead to serious psychological trauma. This trial aimed to ascertain the efectiveness of the advisory display SmartPilot View (SPV), as a supplemental measure in the assessment of anesthetic depth in low risk gynecological surgery patients. The hypothesis was that the use of the SPV would increase the precision of assessment, and result in a higher mean arterial pressure. Methods: This trial used a randomized, controlled, single-blind design with a homogeneous sample. Patients undergoing minor, low risk gynecological surgery were randomly assigned to two groups: a test group wherein current standards were supplemented with the advisory display SPV and a control group assessed using only the current standards. Female patients aged between 18 and 75 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classifcation System scores of 1–3 undergoing planned general anesthesia using the total intravenous anesthetic method, combining propofol and remifentanil, were included. The exclusion criteria included a body mass index≥35 kg/m2 , a history of alcoholism, drug intake afecting propofol and remifentanil dynamics, and inability to consent. The independent sample t-test and chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test were used to assess the statistical signifcance of diferences between the two groups. Results: A total of 114 patients were included in the analysis (test group n=58, control group n=56). No signifcant diferences in the mean arterial pressure, heart rate, bispectral index, extubation delay, or post-anesthesia care unit stay were found between groups. Conclusions: The addition of the advisory display SmartPilot® View to current standards in the evaluation of anesthetic depth had no signifcant efect on the outcome. Trial registration: The trial was registered on January 16th 2019 with ClinicalTrials.gov (ref: NCT03807271).The trial was funded by Innlandet Hospital Trust and the Norwegian University for Science and Technology (NTNU). The funders had no role in the design of the study, data collection, analysis, interpretation of the data or writing the manuscript.publishedVersio

Effect of two behavioural 'nudging' interventions on management decisions for low back pain: A randomised vignette-based study in general practitioners

Objective €Nudges' are subtle cognitive cues thought to influence behaviour. We investigated whether embedding nudges in a general practitioner (GP) clinical decision support display can reduce low-value management decisions. Methods Australian GPs completed four clinical vignettes of patients with low back pain. Participants chose from three guideline-concordant and three guideline-discordant (low-value) management options for each vignette, on a computer screen. A 2×2 factorial design randomised participants to two possible nudge interventions: €partition display' nudge (low-value options presented horizontally, high-value options listed vertically) or €default option' nudge (high-value options presented as the default, low-value options presented only after clicking for more). The primary outcome was the proportion of scenarios where practitioners chose at least one of the low-value care options. Results 120 GPs (72% male, 28% female) completed the trial (n=480 vignettes). Participants using a conventional menu display without nudges chose at least one low-value care option in 42% of scenarios. Participants exposed to the default option nudge were 44% less likely to choose at least one low-value care option (OR 0.56, 95%CI 0.37 to 0.85; p=0.006) compared with those not exposed. The partition display nudge had no effect on choice of low-value care (OR 1.08, 95%CI 0.72 to 1.64; p=0.7). There was no interaction between the nudges (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; p=0.89). Interpretation A default option nudge reduced the odds of choosing low-value options for low back pain in clinical vignettes. Embedding high value options as defaults in clinical decision support tools could improve quality of care. More research is needed into how nudges impact clinical decision-making in different contexts

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Capability Framework

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Capability Framewor

Managing healthcare budgets in times of austerity: the role of program budgeting and marginal analysis

Given limited resources, priority setting or choice making will remain a reality at all levels of publicly funded healthcare across countries for many years to come. The pressures may well be even more acute as the impact of the economic crisis of 2008 continues to play out but, even as economies begin to turn around, resources within healthcare will be limited, thus some form of rationing will be required. Over the last few decades, research on healthcare priority setting has focused on methods of implementation as well as on the development of approaches related to fairness and legitimacy and on more technical aspects of decision making including the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Recently, research has led to better understanding of evaluating priority setting activity including defining ‘success’ and articulating key elements for high performance. This body of research, however, often goes untapped by those charged with making challenging decisions and as such, in line with prevailing public sector incentives, decisions are often reliant on historical allocation patterns and/or political negotiation. These archaic and ineffective approaches not only lead to poor decisions in terms of value for money but further do not reflect basic ethical conditions that can lead to fairness in the decision-making process. The purpose of this paper is to outline a comprehensive approach to priority setting and resource allocation that has been used in different contexts across countries. This will provide decision makers with a single point of access for a basic understanding of relevant tools when faced with having to make difficult decisions about what healthcare services to fund and what not to fund. The paper also addresses several key issues related to priority setting including how health technology assessments can be used, how performance can be improved at a practical level, and what ongoing resource management practice should look like. In terms of future research, one of the most important areas of priority setting that needs further attention is how best to engage public members

Comparability of online out-of-pocket tools from Australian private health funds

Privately insured patients face highly variable out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for inpatient admissions. Three of Australia’s largest private health insurance (PHI) funds have therefore developed online OOP cost estimator tools for various procedur

Rates of Low-Value Service in Australian Public Hospitals and the Association With Patient Insurance Status.

Importance: Low-value services have limited or no benefit to patients. Rates of low-value service in public hospitals may vary by patient insurance status, given that there may be different financial incentives for treatment of privately insured patients. Objective: To assess the variation in rates of 5 low-value services performed in Australian public hospitals according to patient funding status (ie, private or public). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed New South Wales public hospital data from January 2013 to June 2018. Patients included in the sample were over age 18 years and eligible to receive low-value services based on diagnoses and concomitant procedures. Data analysis was conducted from June to December 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital-specific rates of low-value knee arthroscopic debridement, vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, oophorectomy with hysterectomy, and laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation for chronic pelvic pain were measured. For each measure, rates within each public hospital were compared by patient funding status descriptively and using multilevel models. Results: A total of 219 862 inpatients were included in analysis from 58 public hospitals across the 5 measures. A total of 38 365 (22 904 [59.7%] women; 12 448 [32.4%] aged 71-80 years) were eligible for knee arthroscopic debridement for osteoarthritis; 2520 (1924 [76.3%] women; 662 [26.3%] aged 71-80 years), vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures; 162 285 (82 046 [50.6%] women; 28 255 [17.4%] aged 61-70 years), hyperbaric oxygen therapy; 15 916 (7126 [44.8%] aged 41-50 years), oophorectomy with hysterectomy; and 776 (327 [42.1%] aged 18-30 years), uterine nerve ablation for chronic pelvic pain. Overall rates of low-value services varied considerably between measures, with the lowest rate for hyperbaric oxygen therapy (0.3 procedures per 1000 inpatients [47 of 158 220 eligible inpatients]) and the highest for vertebroplasty (30.8 procedures per 1000 eligible patients [77 of 2501 eligible inpatients]). There was significant variation in rates between hospitals, with a few outlying hospitals (ie, <10), particularly for knee arthroscopy (range from 1.8 to 21.0 per 1000 eligible patients) and vertebroplasty (range from 13.1 to 70.4 per 1000 eligible patients), with higher numerical rates of low-value services among patients with private insurance than for those without. However, there was no association overall between patient insurance status and low-value services. Overall differences in rates among those with and without private insurance by individual procedure type were not statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance: There was significant variation in rates of low-value services in public hospitals. While there was no overall association between private insurance and rate of low-value services, private insurance may be associated with low-value service rates in some hospitals. Further exploration of factors specific to local hospitals and practices are needed to reduce this unnecessary care

Should there be a female age limit on public funding for Assisted Reproductive Technology? Differing conceptions of justice in resource allocation

Should there be a female age limit on public funding for assisted reproductive technology (ART)? The question bears significant economic and sociopolitical implications and has been contentious in many countries. We conceptualise the question as one of justice in resource allocation, using three much-debated substantive principles of justice—the capacity to benefit, personal responsibility, and need—to structure and then explore a complex of arguments. Capacity-to-benefit arguments are not decisive: There are no clear cost-effectiveness grounds to restrict funding to those older women who still bear some capacity to benefit from ART. Personal responsibility arguments are challenged by structural determinants of delayed motherhood. Nor are need arguments decisive: They can speak either for or against a female age limit, depending on the conception of need used. We demonstrate how these principles can differ not only in content but also in the relative importance they are accorded by governments. Wide variation in ART public funding policy might be better understood in this light. We conclude with some inter-country comparison. New Zealand and Swedish policies are uncommonly transparent and thus demonstrate particularly well how the arguments we explore have been put into practice