How can diagnostic assessment programs be implemented to enhance inter-professional collaborative care for cancer?

Implementation Science

David R McCready⁴  Thomas K Waddell⁵  Mark J Dobrow³  Melissa C Brouwers⁷  Jeffrey Hoch⁸  Frances C Wright⁹  Julie Gilbert²  Terri Stuart-McEwan¹  Anna R Gagliardi⁶ 

[1] Gattuso Rapid Diagnostic Centre and Solid Tumour Oncology, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada;Planning and Regional Programs, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Canada;Cancer Services and Policy Research Unit, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Canada;Surgical Oncology, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada;Surgery, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada;Toronto General Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada;Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;Pharmacoeconomics Research Unit, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Canada;Odette Regional Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada

关键词: Lung cancer;    Breast cancer;    Diagnostic assessment program;    Cooperative behavior;    Communication;    Inter-professional relations;    Multidisciplinary care team;    Inter-professional collaborative care;   

Others  :  810619
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-9-4

 received in 2013-10-04, accepted in 2013-11-12,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Inter-professional collaborative care (ICC) for cancer leads to multiple system, organizational, professional, and patient benefits, but is limited by numerous challenges. Empirical research on interventions that promote or enable ICC is sparse so guidance on how to achieve ICC is lacking. Research shows that ICC for diagnosis could be improved. Diagnostic assessment programs (DAPs) appear to be a promising model for enabling ICC. The purpose of this study was to explore how DAP structure and function enable ICC, and whether that may be associated with organizational and clinical outcomes.

Methods

A case study approach will be used to explore ICC among eight DAPs that vary by type of cancer (lung, breast), academic status, and geographic region. To describe DAP function and outcomes, and gather information that will enable costing, recommendations expressed in DAP standards and clinical guidelines will be assessed through retrospective observational study. Data will be acquired from databases maintained by participating DAPs and the provincial cancer agency, and confirmed by and supplemented with review of medical records. We will conduct a pilot study to explore the feasibility of estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using person-level data from medical records and other sources. Interviews will be conducted with health professionals, staff, and referring physicians from each DAP to learn about barriers and facilitators of ICC. Qualitative methods based on a grounded approach will be used to guide sampling, data collection and analysis.

Discussion

Findings may reveal opportunities for unique structures, interventions or tools that enable ICC that could be developed, implemented, and evaluated through future research. This information will serve as a formative needs assessment to identify the nature of ongoing or required improvements, which can be directly used by our decision maker collaborators, and as a framework by policy makers, cancer system managers, and DAP managers elsewhere to strategically plan for and implement diagnostic cancer services.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Gagliardi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Wright FC, De Vito C, Langer B, Hunter A: Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: a systematic review and development of practice standards. Eur J Cancer 2007, 43:1002-1010.
• [2]Kattlove H, Winn RJ: Ongoing care of patients after primary treatment for their cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2003, 54:172-196.
• [3]Ko C, Chaudhry S: The need for a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care. J Surg Res 2002, 150:53-57.
• [4]Litaker D, Mion LC, Planavsky L, Kippes C, Mehta N, Frolkis J: Physician-nurse practitioner teams in chronic disease management: The impact on costs, clinical effectiveness, and patients’ perception of care. J Interprof Care 2003, 17:223-237.
• [5]Hudson B: Pessimism and optimism in inter-professional working. J Interprof Care 2007, 21:3-15.
• [6]D’Amour D, Oandasan I: Interprofessionality as the field of interprofessional practice and interprofessional education: an emerging concept. J Interprofl Care 2005, 19(Suppl 1):8-20.
• [7]World Health Organization: Cancer. Fact Sheets 297. 2006. [http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/index.html webcite, access September 8, 2009]
• [8]Haward R, Amir Z, Borill C, Dawson J, Scully J, West M, Sainsbury R: Breast cancer teams: the impact of constitution, new cancer workload and methods of operation on effectiveness. Br J Cancer 2003, 89:15-22.
• [9]Fleissig A, Jenkins V, Catt S, Fallowfield L: Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK? Lancet Oncol 2006, 7:935-943.
• [10]Bastani R, Yabroff KR, Myers RE, Glenn B: Interventions to improve follow up of abnormal findings in cancer screening. Cancer 2004, 101:1188-1200.
• [11]Freeth D: Sustaining interprofessional collaboration. J Interprof Care 2001, 15:37-46.
• [12]Armitage GD, Suter E, Oelke ND, Adair CE: Health systems integration: state of the evidence. Int J Integr Care 2009, 9:1-11.
• [13]Goldman J, Zwarenstein M, Bhattacharyya O, Reeves S: Improving the clarity of the interprofessional field: implications for research and continuing interprofessional education. J Cont Ed Health Prof 2009, 29:151-156.
• [14]Gagliardi AR, Wright FC, Davis D, McLeod RS, Urbach DR: Challenges in multidisciplinary cancer care among general surgeons in Canada. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008, 8:59. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Gagliardi AR, Wright FC, Victor JC, Brouwers MC, Silver IL: Self directed learning needs, patterns and outcomes among general surgeons. J Contin Ed Health Prof 2009, 29:269-275.
• [16]Gagliardi AR, Wright FC, Khalifa MA, Smith AJ: Multiple factors influence compliance with colorectal cancer staging recommendations. BMC Health Serv Res 2008, 8:34. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Cardella J, Coburn NG, Gagliardi A, Maier BA, Greco E, Smith AJ, Law C, Wright F: Compliance, attitudes and barriers to post operative colorectal cancer follow up. J Eval Clin Pract 2008, 14:407-415.
• [18]Govindarajan A, Fraser N, Cranford V, Wirtzfeld D, Gallinger S, Law CHL, Smith AJ, Gagliardi AR: Predictors of multivisceral resection in patients with locally advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2008, 15:1923-1930.
• [19]Holloway CMB, Gagliardi AR: Percutaneous needle biopsy for breast diagnosis: how do surgeons decide? Ann Surg Oncol 2009, 16:1629-1636.
• [20]Gagliardi AR, Dobrow MJ, Wright FC: How can we improve cancer care? A review of interprofessional collaboration models and their use in clinical management. Surg Oncol 2011, 20:146-154.
• [21]Hong NJ, Wright FC, Gagliardi AR, Paszat LF: Examining the potential relationship between multidisciplinary cancer care and patient survival. J Surg Oncol 2010, 102(2):125-134.
• [22]Wright FC, Lookhong N, Urbach DR, Davis D, McLeod RS, Gagliardi AR: Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: identifying opportunities to promote implementation. Ann Surg Oncol 2009, 16(10):2731-2737.
• [23]Look Hong NJ, Gagliardi AR, Bronskill SE, Paszat LF, Wright FC: Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: exploring obstacles and facilitators to their implementation. J Oncol Pract 2010, 6(2):61-68.
• [24]Dobrow MJ, Paszat L, Golden B, Brown AD, Holowaty E, Orchard MC, Monga N, Sullivan T: Measuring integration of cancer services to support performance improvement: the CSI survey. Healthcare Policy 2009, 5(1):35-53.
• [25]Orchard MC, Dobrow MJ, Paszat L, Jiang H, Brown P: Access to electronic health records by care setting and provider type: perceptions of cancer care providers in Ontario, Canada. BMC Med Inform Dec Mak 2009, 9:38. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Lookhong NJ, Wright FC, Gagliardi AR, Brown P, Dobrow MJ: Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: exploring the attitudes of cancer care providers and administrators. J Interprof Care 2009, 23(6):599-610.
• [27]Brouwers M, Oliver T, Crawford J, Ellison P, Evans W, Gagliardi A, et al.: Cancer diagnostic assessment programs: standards for the organization of care in Ontario. Curr Oncol 2009, 16(6):29-41.
• [28]Division of Regional Programs & Planning: Diagnostic Assessment Programs: An Environmental Scan. Toronto: Cancer Care Ontario; 2009.
• [29]Gagliardi A, Grunfeld E, Evans WK: Evaluation of diagnostic assessment units in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2004, 22(6):1126-1135.
• [30]Gagliardi A, Lemieux-Charles L, Brown A, Sulivan T, Goel V: Stakeholder preferences for cancer care performance indicators. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2008, 21(2):175-189.
• [31]Yin RK: Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Serv Res 1999, 34(5 Pt 2):1209-1224.
• [32]Wallis M, Tarvidon A, Helbich T, Schreer I: Guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging for diagnostic interventional breast procedures. Eur Radiol 2007, 17:581-588.
• [33]Gagliardi A, Wright FC, Quan ML, McCready D: Evaluating the organization and delivery of breast cancer services: use of performance measures to identify knowledge gaps. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007, 103:131-148.
• [34]Rosselli Del Turco M, Ponti A, Bick U, Biganzoli L, Cserni G, Cutuli B, et al.: Quality indicators in breast cancer care. Eur J Ca 2010, 46:2344-2356.
• [35]Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ: The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ 2001, 10(2):179-184.
• [36]Strauss A, Corbin J: Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990.
• [37]Miles MB, Huberman AM: Qualitative Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994.
• [38]Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N: Analysing qualitative data. Br Med J 2000, 320:114-116.