Dataset Information

The cluster-randomized Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer trial: evaluating a quality-improvement strategy in surgery.

ABSTRACT: Following surgery for rectal cancer, two unfortunate outcomes for patients are permanent colostomy and local recurrence of cancer. We tested whether a quality-improvement strategy to change surgical practice would improve these outcomes.Sixteen hospitals were cluster-randomized to the intervention (Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer strategy) or control (normal practice) arm. Consecutive patients with primary rectal cancer were accrued from May 2002 to December 2004. Surgeons at hospitals in the intervention arm could voluntarily participate by attending workshops, using opinion leaders, inviting a study team surgeon to demonstrate optimal techniques of total mesorectal excision, completing postoperative questionnaires, and receiving audits and feedback. Main outcome measures were hospital rates of permanent colostomy and local recurrence of cancer.A total of 56 surgeons (n = 558 patients) participated in the intervention arm and 49 surgeons (n = 457 patients) in the control arm. The median follow-up of patients was 3.6 years. In the intervention arm, 70% of surgeons participated in workshops, 70% in intraoperative demonstrations and 71% in postoperative questionnaires. Surgeons who had an intraoperative demonstration provided care to 86% of the patients in the intervention arm. The rates of permanent colostomy were 39% in the intervention arm and 41% in the control arm (odds ratio [OR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.48). The rates of local recurrence were 7% in the intervention arm and 6% in the control arm (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.68-1.64).Despite good participation by surgeons, the resource-intense quality-improvement strategy did not reduce hospital rates of permanent colostomy or local recurrence compared with usual practice.

SUBMITTER: Simunovic M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2934795 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The cluster-randomized Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer trial: evaluating a quality-improvement strategy in surgery.

Simunovic Marko M Coates Angela A Goldsmith Charles H CH Thabane Lehana L Reeson Dana D Smith Andrew A McLeod Robin S RS DeNardi Franco F Whelan Timothy J TJ Levine Mark N MN

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20100809 12

<h4>Background</h4>Following surgery for rectal cancer, two unfortunate outcomes for patients are permanent colostomy and local recurrence of cancer. We tested whether a quality-improvement strategy to change surgical practice would improve these outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>Sixteen hospitals were cluster-randomized to the intervention (Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer strategy) or control (normal practice) arm. Consecutive patients with primary rectal cancer were accrued from May 2002 to Decembe ...[more]

PMID: 20696797

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTwo unfortunate outcomes for patients treated surgically for rectal cancer are placement of a permanent colostomy and local tumor recurrence. Total mesorectal excision is a new technique for rectal cancer surgery that can lead to improved patient outcomes. We describe a cluster randomized controlled trial that is testing if the above patient outcomes can be improved through a knowledge translation strategy called the Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer (QIRC) strategy. The strategy is designed to optimize the use of total mesorectal excision techniques.Methods and designHospitals were randomized to the QIRC strategy (experimental group) versus normal practice environment (control group). Participating hospitals, and the respective surgeon group operating in them, are from Ontario, Canada and have an annual procedure volume for major rectal cancer resections of 15 or greater. Patients were eligible if they underwent major rectal surgery for a diagnosis of primary rectal cancer. The surgeon-directed QIRC interventions included a workshop, use of opinion leaders, operative demonstrations, a post-operative questionnaire, and, audit and feedback. For an operative demonstration participating surgeons invited a study team surgeon to assist them with a case of rectal cancer surgery. The intent was to demonstrate total mesorectal excision techniques. Control arm surgeons received no intervention. Sample size calculations were two-sided, considered the clustering of data at the hospital level, and were driven by requirements for the outcome local recurrence. To detect an improvement in local recurrence from 20% to 8% with confidence we required 16 hospitals and 672 patients - 8 hospitals and 336 patients in each arm. Outcomes data are collected via chart review for at least 30 months after surgery. Analyses will use an intention-to-treat principle and will consider the clustering of data. Data collection will be complete by the end of 2007.DiscussionLower rates of permanent colostomy and local tumour recurrence in the intervention arm would suggest the QIRC strategy is efficacious. The strategy may act as a template for efforts to improve surgical quality in other areas and will contribute to knowledge on influencing surgeon practice.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN78363167.

Project description:Dissemination is a critical facet of implementing quality improvement in organizations. As a field, addiction treatment has produced effective interventions but disseminated them slowly and reached only a fraction of people needing treatment. This study investigates four methods of disseminating quality improvement (QI) to addiction treatment programs in the U.S. It is, to our knowledge, the largest study of organizational change ever conducted in healthcare. The trial seeks to determine the most cost-effective method of disseminating quality improvement in addiction treatment.The study is evaluating the costs and effectiveness of different QI approaches by randomizing 201 addiction-treatment programs to four interventions. Each intervention used a web-based learning kit plus monthly phone calls, coaching, face-to-face meetings, or the combination of all three. Effectiveness is defined as reducing waiting time (days between first contact and treatment), increasing program admissions, and increasing continuation in treatment. Opportunity costs will be estimated for the resources associated with providing the services.The study has three primary outcomes: waiting time, annual program admissions, and continuation in treatment. Secondary outcomes include: voluntary employee turnover, treatment completion, and operating margin. We are also seeking to understand the role of mediators, moderators, and other factors related to an organization's success in making changes.We are fitting a mixed-effect regression model to each program's average monthly waiting time and continuation rates (based on aggregated client records), including terms to isolate state and intervention effects. Admissions to treatment are aggregated to a yearly level to compensate for seasonality. We will order the interventions by cost to compare them pair-wise to the lowest cost intervention (monthly phone calls). All randomized sites with outcome data will be included in the analysis, following the intent-to-treat principle. Organizational covariates in the analysis include program size, management score, and state.The study offers seven recommendations for conducting a large-scale cluster-randomized trial: provide valuable services, have aims that are clear and important, seek powerful allies, understand the recruiting challenge, cultivate commitment, address turnover, and encourage rigor and flexibility.ClinicalTrials. govNCT00934141.

Project description:ImportanceMany patients with cancer who would benefit from psychosocial care do not receive it. Implementation strategies may favor the integration of psychosocial care into practice and improve patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of the Humanization in Cancer Care (HuCare) Quality Improvement Strategy vs standard care as improvement of at least 1 of 2 domains (emotional or social function) of patient health-related quality of life at baseline and 3 months. A key secondary aim included investigation of the long-term effect.Design, setting, and participantsHuCare2 was a multicenter, incomplete, stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial, conducted from May 30, 2016, to August 28, 2019, in three 5-center clusters of cancer centers representative of hospital size and geographic location in Italy. The study was divided into 5 equally spaced epochs. Implementation sequence was defined by a blinded statistician; the nature of the intervention precluded blinding for clinical staff. Participants included consecutive adult outpatients with newly diagnosed cancer of any type and stage starting medical cancer treatment.InterventionsThe HuCare Quality Improvement Strategy comprised (1) clinician communication training, (2) on-site visits for context analysis and problem-solving, and (3) implementation of 6 evidence-based recommendations.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the difference between the means of changes of individual scores in emotional or social functions of health-related quality of life detected at baseline and 3-month follow-up (within each group) and during the postintervention epoch compared with control periods (between groups). Long-term effect of the intervention (at 12 months) was assessed as a secondary outcome. Intention-to-treat analysis was used.ResultsA total of 762 patients (475 [62.3%] women) were enrolled (400 HuCare Quality Improvement Strategy and 362 usual care); mean (SD) age was 61.4 (13.1) years. The HuCare Quality Improvement Strategy significantly improved emotional function during treatment (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.22; P = .008) but not social function (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.09; P = .80). Effect on emotional function persisted at 12 months (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.10; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceIn this trial, the HuCare Quality Improvement Strategy significantly improved the emotional function aspect of health-related quality of life during cancer treatment and at 12 months, indicating a change in clinician behavior and in ward organization. These findings support the need for strategies to introduce psychosocial care; however, more research is needed on factors that may maximize the effects.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03008993.

Project description:BackgroundGiven persistent gaps in coordination of care for medically complex primary care patients, efficient strategies are needed to promote better care coordination.ObjectiveThe Coordination Toolkit and Coaching project compared two toolkit-based strategies of differing intensity to improve care coordination at VA primary care clinics.DesignMulti-site, cluster-randomized QI initiative.ParticipantsTwelve VA primary care clinics matched in 6 pairs.InterventionsWe used a computer-generated allocation sequence to randomize clinics within each pair to two implementation strategies. Active control clinics received an online toolkit with evidence-based tools and QI coaching manual. Intervention clinics received the online toolkit plus weekly assistance from a distance coach for 12 months.Main measuresWe quantified patient experience of general care coordination using the Health Care System Hassles Scale (primary outcome) mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to serial cross-sectional patient samples. We measured the difference-in-difference (DiD) in clinic-level-predicted mean counts of hassles between coached and non-coached clinics, adjusting for clustering and patient characteristics using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and bootstrapping to obtain 95% confidence intervals. Other measures included care coordination QI projects attempted, tools adopted, and patient-reported exposure to projects.Key resultsN = 2,484 (49%) patients completed baseline surveys and 2,481 (48%) completed follow-ups. Six coached clinics versus five non-coached clinics attempted QI projects. All coached clinics versus two non-coached clinics attempted more than one project or projects that were multifaceted (i.e., involving multiple components addressing a common goal). Five coached versus three non-coached clinics used 1-2 toolkit tools. Both the coached and non-coached clinics experienced pre-post reductions in hassle counts over the study period (- 0.42 (- 0.76, - 0.08) non-coached; - 0.40 (- 0.75, - 0.06) coached). However, the DiD (0.02 (- 0.47, 0.50)) was not statistically significant; coaching did not improve patient experience of care coordination relative to the toolkit alone.ConclusionAlthough coached clinics attempted more or more complex QI projects and used more tools than non-coached clinics, coaching provided no additional benefit versus the online toolkit alone in patient-reported outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03063294.

Dataset Information

The cluster-randomized Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer trial: evaluating a quality-improvement strategy in surgery.

Publications

The cluster-randomized Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer trial: evaluating a quality-improvement strategy in surgery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets