Has the Introduction of Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy Altered the Treatment Paradigm of Achalasia?

Although surgical myotomy is well established as the most effective and durable treatment for achalasia, wide acceptance of this procedure as a first-line treatment has been hampered by perceived invasiveness and morbidity. Laparoscopic myotomy has significantly reduced surgical trauma and morbidity while maintaining effectiveness. The effect of laparoscopic myotomy on the treatment pattern for achalasia is not currently known. All patients undergoing surgical myotomy in Quebec from 1997 to 2002 were identified from the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec billing database; previous endoscopic treatment was documented from 1990 to the time of surgery. Patients were divided into two groups (prelaparoscopy and postlaparoscopy) defined by the approximate date when laparoscopic myotomy became generally available in Quebec. A questionnaire examining treatment preference for achalasia was sent to all Quebec gastroenterologists. The number of myotomies performed in Quebec remained stable (prelaparoscopy = 28.7/year; postlaparoscopy = 33/year), but were performed on an older population. The rate of preoperative endoscopic treatment did not differ from prelaparoscopy (29.2%) to postlaparoscopy (23.3%). However, the time interval between the last endoscopy and myotomy diminished significantly. Questionnaire response rate was 41% (60 of 147). Although myotomy was recognized as the most effective treatment (54 of 60), only 22 of 60 gastroenterologists would refer a healthy patient for myotomy as initial treatment. Other choices included dilation (33 of 60), Botulinum toxin (two of 60) or calcium channel blockade (three of 60). Despite a decrease in time interval between endoscopic treatment and surgery, no decrease in the rate of existing endoscopic therapies occurred after laparoscopic myotomy became widely available. The benefits and minimal risks associated with laparoscopic myotomy need to be more effectively communicated by referring physicians

Causes of increased length of hospitalization on a general thoracic surgery service: a prospective observational study

ObjectiveTo characterize medical and nonmedical reasons for delayed discharge on a general thoracic surgery unit.DesignA prospective observational cohort study.SettingA university-affiliated tertiary care institution.PatientsBetween February 1999 and July 2000, the in-hospital progress of 130 patients who had undergone an elective thoracic surgical procedure was evaluated prospectively. Baseline characteristics (age, sex, comorbid conditions and pulmonary function test results) were documented.Main outcome measuresComplications that delayed the time when the patient was medically ready for discharge. The day the patient was deemed fit for discharge (medically required length of stay) was compared with the actual day of discharge (actual length of stay). [...]impact on medically required length of stay, social factors may also significantly delay discharge

Health Professional–Identified Barriers to Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Qualitative Study

Background: Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) has several advantages over deceased donor kidney transplantation. Yet rates of living donation are declining in Canada and there exists significant interprovincial variability. Efforts to improve living donation tend to focus on the patient and barriers identified at their level, such as not knowing how to ask for a kidney or lack of education. These efforts favor those who have the means and the support to find living donors. Thus, a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)-organized workshop recommended that education efforts to understand and remove barriers should focus on health professionals (HPs). Despite this, little attention has been paid to what they identify as barriers to discussing LDKT with their patients. Objective: Our aim was to explore HP-identified barriers to discuss living donation with patients in 3 provinces of Canada with low (Quebec), moderate (Ontario), and high (British Columbia) rates of LDKT. Design: This study consists of an interpretive descriptive approach as it enables to move beyond description and inform clinical practice. Setting: Purposive criterion and quota sampling were used to recruit HPs from Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia who are involved in the care of patients with kidney disease and/or with transplant coordination. Patients: Not applicable. Measurements: Semistructured interviews were conducted. The interview guide was developed based on a preliminary analytical framework and a review of the literature. Methods: Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data stemming from the interviews. The coding process comprised of a deductive and inductive approach, and the use of a qualitative analysis software (NVivo 11). Following this, themes were identified and developed. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was obtained. In total, we conducted 16 telephone interviews as thematic saturation was attained. Results: Six predominant themes emerged: (1) lack of communication between transplant and dialysis teams, (2) absence of referral guidelines, (3) role perception and lack of multidisciplinary involvement, (4) HP’s lack of information and training, (5) negative attitudes of some HP toward LDKT, (6) patient-level barriers as defined by the HP. HPs did mention patients’ attitudes and some characteristics as the main barriers to discussions about living donation; this was noted in all provinces. HPs from Ontario and British Columbia indicated multiple strategies being implemented to address some of these barriers. Those from Ontario mentioned strategies that center on the core principles of provincial-level standardization, while those from British Columbia center on engaging the entire multidisciplinary team and improved role perception. We noted a dearth of such efforts in Quebec; however, efforts around education and promotion, while tentative, have emerged. Limitations: Social desirability and selection bias. Our analysis might not be applicable to other provinces. Conclusions: HPs involved with the referral and coordination of transplantation play a major role in access to LDKT. We have identified challenges they face when discussing living donation with their patients that warrant further assessment and research to inform policy change