Search

This article focuses on Quebec's most recent reform in the regionalization of health care to understand why the government chose to transform the regional boards into agencies. This case study used interviews and documentary analysis. Rooted in a political science perspective, the conceptual framework is inspired by the work of John and draws on the four variables that influence the choice of policy: ideas, interests, institutions and events. Results of the case study suggest that Quebec's Commission of Study for Health and Social Services (the Clair Commission) in 2000 and the 2002 pre-electoral environment put the issue on the agenda. In 2003, the newly elected Liberal government passed Bill 25 - An Act Respecting Local Health and Social Services Network Development Agencies, which represented a political compromise: originally slated for eradication, the regional tier survived but in a new form. The element that sparked reform was the change in government following the elections. Different inquiry reports spread the reform's ideas, while interest groups articulated contrasting visions on the transformation. Above all, regional institutions showed great resilience in the face of change. From a historical perspective, this regionalization policy is a step backward: the regional tier is now stronger from a managerial and technocratic point of view, but it is politically and democratically weakened. This suggests a government intention, at that time, to maintain the regional level as a means of retaining centralized control over Quebec's health-care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective As rates of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) for osteoarthritis (OA) rise, there is a need to ensure appropriate use. We undertook this study to develop criteria for appropriate use of TJA. Methods In prior work, we used qualitative methods to separately assess OA patients' and arthroplasty surgeons' perceptions regarding appropriateness of patient candidates for TJA. The current study reviewed the appropriateness themes that emerged from each group, and a series of statements were developed to reflect each unique theme or criterion. A group of arthroplasty surgeons then indicated their level of agreement with each statement using electronic voting. Where ≤70% agreed or disagreed, the criterion was discussed and revised, and revoting occurred. In standardized telephone interviews, OA patient focus group participants indicated their level of agreement with each revised criterion. Results Qualitative research in 58 OA patients and 14 arthroplasty surgeons identified 11 appropriateness criteria. Member-checking in 15 surgeons (including 5 who had participated in the qualitative study) resulted in agreement on 6 revised criteria. These included evidence of arthritis on joint examination, patient-reported symptoms negatively impacting quality of life, an adequate trial of appropriate nonsurgical treatment, realistic patient expectations of surgery, mental and physical readiness of patient for surgery, and patient-surgeon agreement that potential benefits exceed risks. Thirty-six of the original 58 OA patient focus group participants (62.1%) participated in the member-check interviews and endorsed all 6 criteria. Conclusion Patients and surgeons jointly endorsed 6 criteria for assessment of TJA appropriateness in OA patients. Prospective validation of these criteria (assessed preoperatively) as predictive of postoperative patient-reported outcomes is under way and will inform development of a surgeon-patient decision-support tool for assessment of TJA appropriateness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]