Objective We seek to identify potentially modifiable determinants associated with variability in leptomeningeal collateral status in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods Data are from the Keimyung Stroke Registry. Consecutive patients with M1 segment middle cerebral artery (MCA) ± intracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusions on baseline CT-angiography (CTA) from May 2004 to July 2009 were included. Baseline and follow-up imaging was analyzed blinded to all clinical information. Two raters assessed leptomeningeal collaterals on baseline CTA by consensus, using a previously validated regional leptomeningeal score (rLMC). Results Baseline characteristics (n=206) were: mean age 66.9±11.6 years, median baseline NIHSS 14 (IQR 11-20), and median stroke symptom onset to CTA 166 minutes (IQR 96-262), Poor collateral status at baseline (rLMC score 0-10) was seen in 73/206 (35.4%). On univariate analyses, patients with poor collateral status at baseline were older, hypertensive, had higher white blood cell count, blood glucose, D-dimer, serum uric acid levels, and were more likely to have metabolic syndrome. Multivariable modeling identified metabolic syndrome (OR 3.22 95% CI 1.69-6.15, p<0.001), hyperuricemia (per 1 mg/dl OR 1.35 95% CI 1.12-1.62, p<0.01) and older age (per 10 years, OR 1.34 95% CI 1.02-1.77, p=0.03) as independent predictors of poor leptomeningeal collateral status at baseline. Conclusion Metabolic syndrome, hyperuricemia and age are associated with poor leptomeningeal collateral status in patients with acute ischemic stroke.

BackgroundSingle-entry models (SEMs) for the management of patients awaiting elective surgical services are designed to increase access and flow through the system of care. We assessed scope of use and influence of SEMs on access (waiting times/throughput) and patient-centredness (patient/provider acceptability).MethodsSystematic review of articles published in 6 relevant electronic databases included studies from database inception to July 2016. Included studies needed to (1) report on the nature of the SEM; (2) specify elective service and (3) address at least 1 of 3 research questions related to (1) scope of use of SEMs; (2) influence on timeliness and access; (3) patient-centredness and acceptability. Article quality was assessed using a modified Downs and Black checklist.Results11 studies from Canada, Australia and the UK were included with mostly weak observational design—2 simulations, 5 before–after, 2 descriptive and 2 cross-sectional studies. 9 studies showed a decrease in patient waiting times; 6 showed that more patients were meeting benchmark waiting times; and 5 demonstrated that waiting lists decreased using an SEM as compared with controls. Patient acceptability was examined in 6 studies, with high levels of satisfaction reported. Acceptability among general practitioners/surgeons was mixed, as reported in 1 study. Research varied widely in design, scope, reported outcomes and overall quality.ConclusionsThis is the first review to assess the influence of SEMs on access to elective surgery for adults. This review demonstrates a potential ability for SEMs to improve timeliness and patient-centredness of elective services; however, the small number of low-quality studies available does not support firm conclusions about the effectiveness of SEMs to improve access. Further evaluation with higher quality designs and rigour is required.

No abstract

BackgroundPolicy dialogues are critical for developing responsive, effective, sustainable, evidence-informed policy. Our multidisciplinary team, including researchers, physicians and senior decision-makers, comprehensively evaluated The Winnipeg Central Intake Service, a single-entry model in Winnipeg, Manitoba, to improve patient access to hip/knee replacement surgery. We used the evaluation findings to develop five evidence-informed policy directions to help improve access to scheduled clinical services across Manitoba. Using guiding principles of public participation processes, we hosted a policy roundtable meeting to engage stakeholders and use their input to refine the policy directions. Here, we report on the use and input of a policy roundtable meeting and its role in contributing to the development of evidence-informed policy.MethodsOur evidence-informed policy directions focused on formal measurement/monitoring of quality, central intake as a preferred model for service delivery, provincial scope, transparent processes/performance indicators, and patient choice of provider. We held a policy roundtable meeting and used outcomes of facilitated discussions to refine these directions. Individuals from our team and six stakeholder groups across Manitoba participated (n = 44), including patients, family physicians, orthopaedic surgeons, surgical office assistants, Winnipeg Central Intake team, and administrators/managers. We developed evaluation forms to assess the meeting process, and collected decision-maker partners’ perspectives on the value of the policy roundtable meeting and use of policy directions to improve access to scheduled clinical services after the meeting, and again 15 months later. We analyzed roundtable and evaluation data using thematic analysis to identify key themes.ResultsFour key findings emerged. First, participants supported all policy directions, with revisions and key implementation considerations identified. Second, participants felt the policy roundtable meeting achieved its purpose (to engage stakeholders, elicit feedback, refine policy directions). Third, our decision-maker partners’ expectations of the policy roundtable meeting were exceeded; they re-affirmed its value and described the refined policy directions as foundational to establishing the vocabulary, vision and framework for improving access to scheduled clinical services in Manitoba. Finally, our adaptation of key design elements was conducive to discussion of issues surrounding access to care.ConclusionsOur policy roundtable process was an effective tool for acquiring broad input from stakeholders, refining policy directions and forming the necessary consensus starting points to move towards evidence-informed policy.

ObjectivesWe assessed: (1) waiting time variation among surgeons; (2) proportion of patients receiving surgery within benchmark and (3) influence of the Winnipeg Central Intake Service (WCIS) across five dimensions of quality: accessibility, acceptability, appropriateness, effectiveness, safety.DesignPreimplementation/postimplementation cross-sectional design comparing historical (n=2282) and prospective (n=2397) cohorts.SettingRegional, provincial health authority.ParticipantsPatients awaiting total joint replacement of the hip or knee.InterventionsThe WCIS is a single-entry model (SEM) to improve access to total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, implemented to minimise variation in total waiting time (TW) across orthopaedic surgeons and increase the proportion of surgeries within 26 weeks (benchmark). Impact of SEMs on quality of care is poorly understood.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcomes related to ‘accessibility’: waiting time variation across surgeons, waiting times (Waiting Time 2 (WT2)=decision to treat until surgery and TW=total waiting time) and surgeries within benchmark. Analysis included descriptive statistics, group comparisons and clustered regression.ResultsVariability in TW among surgeons was reduced by 3.7 (hip) and 4.3 (knee) weeks. Mean waiting was reduced for TKR (WT2/TW); TKR within benchmark increased by 5.9%. Accessibility and safety were the only quality dimensions that changed (post-WCIS THR and TKR). Shorter WT2 was associated with post-WCIS (knee), worse Oxford score (hip and knee) and having medical comorbidities (hip). Meeting benchmark was associated with post-WCIS (knee), lower Body Mass Index (BMI) (hip) and worse Oxford score (hip and knee).ConclusionsThe WCIS reduced variability across surgeon waiting times, with modest reductions in overall waits for surgery. There was improvement in some, but not all, dimensions of quality.