Dataset Information

National Thoracic Surgery Standards Implementation: Barriers, Enablers, and Opportunities.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Diagnosis and surgical treatment decision making for thoracic cancers is complex. Moreover, there is demonstrated variability in how each province in Canada delivers cancer care, resulting in disparities in patient outcomes. Recently, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) published pan-Canadian evidence-based standards for the care of thoracic surgery cancer patients. This study was undertaken to assess the degree to which these standards were currently met in practice and to further understand the determinants to their implementation nationally.

Methods

This study was undertaken in two parts: (1) a national survey of thoracic surgeons to assess the perceived extent of implementation of these standards in their institution and province; and (2) formation of a focus group with a representative sample of thoracic surgeons across Canada in a qualitative study to understand the determinants of successful standards implementation.

Results

37 surgeons (33% response rate) participated in the survey; 78% were from academic hospitals. The top categories of standards that were under-implemented included (a) quality assurance processes, data collection and clinician audit and feedback, and (b) ongoing regional planning and workload assessments for thoracic surgeons, and (c) pathology turnaround time target of two weeks and the use of a standardized synoptic pathology report format. Enablers, barriers, and opportunities for standards implementation contextualized the discussion within the focus group.

Conclusion

Study results demonstrated variation in the implementation of surgery standards across Canada and identified the determinants to the delivery of high quality surgical care. Future work will need to include the promotion and development of quality improvement strategies and effective resource allocation that is aligned with the implementation of thoracic cancer surgery standards in order to improve patient outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Arnaout A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7903269 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

National Thoracic Surgery Standards Implementation: Barriers, Enablers, and Opportunities.

Arnaout Angel A Prashad Anubha A Dunk Nadine N Rogers Jess J Edwards Annemarie A Argent-Katwala Mary M Finley Christian C

Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) 20210113 1

<h4>Background</h4>Diagnosis and surgical treatment decision making for thoracic cancers is complex. Moreover, there is demonstrated variability in how each province in Canada delivers cancer care, resulting in disparities in patient outcomes. Recently, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) published pan-Canadian evidence-based standards for the care of thoracic surgery cancer patients. This study was undertaken to assess the degree to which these standards were currently met in practic ...[more]

PMID: 33450804

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Diagnosis and surgical treatment decision making for breast cancers has become increasingly complex. Recently, Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) published pan-Canadian evidence-based surgical standards for the care of breast cancer patients. This study was undertaken to assess the degree to which these standards were currently met in practice and to further understand the determinants of their implementation nationally. Methods: This study was undertaken in two parts-(1) National survey of breast cancer surgeons to assess the perceived extent of implementation of these standards in their institution and province; (2) Formation of a focus group with a representative sample of breast surgeons across Canada to further understand the barriers and facilitators towards future breast standards implementation. Results: 35 surgeons participated in the survey: 66% were from community hospitals. There were four categories of standards that were the most significantly lacking across the country-(a) processes related to quality assurance, (b) turnaround time for pathology results (c) psychosocial and health-related support for the breast cancer patient and (d) breast reconstruction for patients undergoing mastectomy. The focus group included participants from all ten Canadian provinces. For each standard, the 134 determinants fell into three main categories-individual physician (n = 27, 20%); organizational (n = 46, 34%), and system (n = 61, 46%). While specific determinants were present for each category, surgical standards were more likely to be implemented in practice if (1) they aligned with organizational priorities standards; (2) the individual physicians or physician groups were accountable to the organization and/or cancer jurisdiction regarding compliance with the standard; and (3) if infrastructure or resources existed within the organization or system for the reliable collection of relevant, meaningful, practice changing data combined with the capability of benchmarking, peer-peer comparisons and timely feedback to the surgeons. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrated variation, barriers and opportunities for the national implementation of CPAC's breast cancer surgery standards and identified determinants of high-quality breast surgical care delivery.

Project description:PurposeTo characterize pediatricians' perceived barriers and areas of confidence in assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the U.S., and to test associations of these factors with implementing PRO assessment.MethodsUsing a random sample from the members of American Medical Association, we recruited general pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists to complete a survey (July 2011 to December 2013). Perceived barriers and confidence in PRO assessment were compared by age, pediatric specialty (general pediatrics, seven subspecialties), practice settings (academic, private), and region of practice. Multivariable logistic regressions tested associations of demographic factors, barriers, and confidence factors with the implementation of PRO assessment.FindingsThe survey was completed by 458 participants (response rate 48.5%); of these, 40.4%, 15.9%, 15.5%, and 8.1% were general pediatricians, cardiology, hematology/oncology, and pulmonary specialists, respectively. PRO assessment was implemented by 29.0% of the pediatricians. The top five barriers for PRO assessment included limited time/manpower (79.0%), limited training (77.4%), lengthy PRO instruments (76%), lack of meaningful cut-offs on PRO scores (75.5%), and unavailable PRO instruments (75.0%). Limited knowledge of PROs (OR 4.10; 95% CI 2.21, 7.60) and unavailability of PRO instruments (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.01, 3.49) increased the odds of not implementing the assessment, whereas confidence in PRO assessments compatible with norms (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.23, 0.72) and perceived benefit over clinical judgment alone (OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.31, 0.93) decreased the odds of not implementing the assessment.Interpretationsignificant barriers to PRO assessment in pediatric settings suggest the need for providing training, resources, and practical guidance toward implementation. Patient or Public Contribution: healthcare service users contributed to this study by completing a survey and providing feedback about the barriers and areas of confidence in assessing PROs for pediatric populations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:While clinical pathways have the potential to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs, their true impact has been limited by variable implementation strategies and suboptimal research designs. This paper explores a comprehensive set of factors perceived by emergency department staff and administrative leads to influence clinical pathway implementation within the complex and dynamic environments of community emergency department settings. METHODS:This descriptive, qualitative study involved emergency health professionals and administrators of 15 community hospitals across Ontario, Canada. As part of our larger cluster randomized controlled trial, each site was in the preparation phase to implement one of two clinical pathways: pediatric asthma or pediatric vomiting and diarrhea. Data were collected from three sources: (i) a mediated group discussion with site champions during the project launch meeting; (ii) a semi-structured site visit of each emergency department; and (iii) key informant interviews with an administrative lead from each hospital. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to guide the interviews and thematically analyze the data. Domains within each major theme were then mapped onto the COM-B model-capability, opportunity, and motivation-of the Behaviour Change Wheel. RESULTS:Seven discrete themes and 58 subthemes were identified that comprised a set of barriers and enablers relevant to the planned clinical pathway implementation. Within two themes, three distinct levels of impact emerged, namely (i) the individual health professional, (ii) the emergency department team, and (iii) the broader hospital context. The TDF domains occurring most frequently were Memory, Attention and Decision Processes, Environmental Context and Resources, Behavioural Regulation, and Reinforcement. Mapping these barriers and enablers onto the COM-B model provided an organized perspective on how these issues may be interacting. Several factors were viewed as both negative and positive across different perspectives. Two of the seven themes were limited to one component, while four involved all three components of the COM-B model. CONCLUSIONS:Using a theory-based approach ensured systematic and comprehensive identification of relevant barriers and enablers to clinical pathway implementation in ED settings. The COM-B system of the Behaviour Change Wheel provided a useful perspective on how these factors might interact to effect change. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01815710 .

Project description:ObjectiveThe study aimed to identify the common gaps in skills and self-efficacy for diabetes self-management and explore other factors which serve as enablers of, and barriers to, achieving optimal diabetes self-management. The information gathered could provide health professionals with valuable insights to achieving better health outcomes with self-management education and support for diabetes patients.MethodsInternational online survey and telephone interviews were conducted on adults who have type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The survey inquired about their skills and self-efficacy in diabetes self-management, while the interviews assessed other enablers of, and barriers to, diabetes self-management. Surveys were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsSurvey participants (N = 217) had type 1 diabetes (38.2%) or type 2 diabetes (61.8%), with a mean age of 44.56 SD 11.51 and were from 4 continents (Europe, Australia, Asia, America). Identified gaps in diabetes self-management skills included the ability to: recognize and manage the impact of stress on diabetes, exercise planning to avoid hypoglycemia and interpreting blood glucose pattern levels. Self-efficacy for healthy coping with stress and adjusting medications or food intake to reach ideal blood glucose levels were minimal. Sixteen participants were interviewed. Common enablers of diabetes self-management included: (i) the will to prevent the development of diabetes complications and (ii) the use of technological devices. Issues regarding: (i) frustration due to dynamic and chronic nature of diabetes (ii) financial constraints (iii) unrealistic expectations and (iv) work and environment-related factors limited patients' effective self-management of diabetes.ConclusionsEducational reinforcement using technological devices such as mobile application has been highlighted as an enabler of diabetes self-management and it could be employed as an intervention to alleviate identified gaps in diabetes self-management. Furthermore, improved approaches that address financial burden, work and environment-related factors as well as diabetes distress are essential for enhancing diabetes self-management.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aims to elucidate determinants for succesful implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Thoracic Surgery (ERATS) protocol for perioperative care for surgical lung cancer patients in the Netherlands.SettingLung cancer operations are performed in both academic and regional hospitals, either by cardiothoracic or general thoracic surgeons. Limiting the impact of these operations by optimising and standardising perioperative care with the ERATS protocol is thought to enable reduction in length of stay, complications and costs.ParticipantsA broad spectrum of stakeholders in perioperative care for patients with lung resection participated in this study, ranging from patient representatives, healthcare professionals to an insurance company representative.InterventionsSemistructured interviews (N=14) were conducted with the stakeholders (N=18). The interviews were conducted one on one by telephone and two times, face to face, in small groups. Verbatim transcriptions of these interviews were coded for the purpose of thematic analysis.Outcome measuresDeterminants for successful implementation of the ERATS protocol in the Netherlands.ResultsSeveral determinants correspond with previous publications: having a multidisciplinary team, leadership from a senior clinician and support from an ERAS-coordinator as facilitators; lack of feedback on performance and absence of management support as barriers. Our study underscores the potential detrimental effect of inconsistent communication, the lack of support in the transition from hospital to home and the barrier posed by lack of accessible audit data.ConclusionsBased on a structured problem analysis among a wide selection of stakeholders, this study provides a solid basis for choosing adequate implementation strategies to introduce the ERATS protocol in the Netherlands. Emphasis on consistent and sufficient communication, support in the transition from hospital to home and adequate audit and feedback data, in addition to established implementation strategies for ERAS-type programmes, will enable a tailored approach to implementation of ERATS in the Dutch context.

Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback entails systematic documentation of clinical performance based on explicit criteria or standards which is then fed back to professionals in a structured manner. There are potential significant returns on investment from partnerships between existing clinical audit programmes in coordinated programmes of research to test ways of improving the effect of their feedback to drive greater improvements in health care delivery and population outcomes. We explored barriers to and enablers of embedding audit and feedback trials within clinical audit programmes.MethodsWe purposively recruited participants with varied experience in embedded trials in audit programmes. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews, guided by behavioural theory, with researchers, clinical audit programme staff and health care professionals. Recorded interviews were transcribed, and data coded and thematically analysed.ResultsWe interviewed 31 participants (9 feedback researchers, 14 audit staff and 8 healthcare professionals, many having dual roles). We identified barriers and enablers for all 14 theoretical domains but no relationship between domains and participant role. We identified four optimal conditions for sustainable collaboration from the perspectives of stakeholders: resources, that is, recognition that audit programmes need to create capacity to participate in research, and research must be adapted to fit within each programme's constraints; logistics, namely, that partnerships need to address data sharing and audit quality, while securing research funding to ensure operational success; leadership, that is, enthusiastic and engaged audit programme leaders must motivate their team and engage local stakeholders; and relationships, meaning that trust between researchers and audit programmes must be established over time by identifying shared priorities and meeting each partner's needs.ConclusionSuccessfully embedding research within clinical audit programmes is likely to require compromise, logistical expertise, leadership and trusting relationships to overcome perceived risks and fully realise benefits.

Dataset Information

National Thoracic Surgery Standards Implementation: Barriers, Enablers, and Opportunities.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

National Thoracic Surgery Standards Implementation: Barriers, Enablers, and Opportunities.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets