Improvement of hospital care for patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial (PEARL study)

Implementation Science

Petronella B Ottevanger⁶  Johan HJM van Krieken²  Eddy MM Adang⁴  Richard WM van der Maazen⁵  Nicole MA Blijlevens⁸  Helena M Dekker¹  Saskia AM van de Schans³  Lianne Wennekes⁷  Rosella PMG Hermens⁷  Jozette JC Stienen⁷ 

[1] Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands;Department of Pathology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands;Department of Registry and Research, Comprehensive Cancer Centre the Netherlands (CCC), PO Box 19079, 3501 DB Utrecht, the Netherlands;Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands;Department of Radiotherapy, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands;Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands;Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen the Netherlands;Department of Hematology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands

关键词: Interventions;    Implementation;    Oncology;    Guidelines;    Quality of healthcare;    non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma;   

Others  :  813512
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-8-77

 received in 2013-04-28, accepted in 2013-07-05,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Malignant lymphomas constitute a diverse group of cancers of lymphocytes. One well-known disease is Hodgkin’s lymphoma; the others are classified as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). NHLs are the most common hematologic neoplasms in adults worldwide, and in 2012 over 170,000 new cases were estimated in the United States and Europe.

In previous studies, several practice gaps in hospital care for patients with NHL have been identified. To decrease this variation in care, the present study aims to perform a problem analysis in which barriers to and facilitators for optimal NHL care will be identified and, based on these findings, to develop (tailored) improvement strategies. Subsequently, we will assess the effectiveness, feasibility and costs of the improvement strategies.

Methods/design

Barriers and facilitators will be explored using the literature, using interviews and questionnaires among physicians involved in NHL care, and patients diagnosed with NHL. The results will be used to develop a tailored improvement strategy. A cluster randomized controlled trial involving 19 Dutch hospitals will be conducted. Hospitals will be randomized to receive either an improvement strategy tailored to the barriers and facilitators found or, a standard strategy of audit and feedback.

The effects of both strategies will be evaluated using previously developed quality indicators. Adherence to the indicators will be measured before and after the intervention period based on medical records from newly diagnosed NHL patients. To study the feasibility of both strategies, a process evaluation will be additionally performed. Data about exposure to the different elements of the strategies will be collected using questionnaires. Economic evaluation from a healthcare perspective will compare the two implementation strategies, where the costs of the implementation strategy and changes in healthcare consumption will be assessed.

Discussion

The presence of variation in the use of diagnostic tests, treatment, and follow-up between different physicians in different hospitals in the Netherlands is important for patients. To reduce the existing variation in care, implementation of tailored interventions to improve NHL care is necessary.

Trial registration

This trial is registered at ClinicalTrial.gov as the PEARL study, registration number NCT01562509.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Stienen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2012. CA: a Cancer J Clin 2012, 62:10-29.
• [2]Bray F, Jemal A, Grey N, Ferlay J, Forman D: Global cancer transitions according to the human development index (2008–2030): a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2012, 13:790-801.
• [3]Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JW, Comber H, Forman D, Bray F: Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 2013, 49:1374-1403.
• [4]Lu P: Staging and classification of lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med 2005, 35:160-164.
• [5]Australian cancer network diagnosis and management of lymphoma guidelines working party: the cancer council Australia and Australian cancer network: clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of lymphoma in 2005. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/cp107/cp107.pdf webcite
• [6]Cheson BD: New staging and response criteria for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma. Radiol Clin N Am 2008, 46:vii213-vii223.
• [7]Dreyling M, Ghielmini M, Marcus R, Salles G, Vitolo U, Group EGW: Newly diagnosed and relapsed follicular lymphoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2011, 22(Suppl 6):vi59-vi63.
• [8]Hallek M, Stahel RA, Greil R: ESMO minimum clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Ann Oncol 2005, 16(Suppl 1):i50-i51.
• [9]Hovon iMTA: Guideline non-Hodgkin lymphoma (richtlijn non-Hodgkin lymfoom). Alphen aan de Rijn: van Zuiden Communications BV; 2004.
• [10]Tilly H, Dreyling M, Group EGW: Diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2010, 21(Suppl 5):v172-v174.
• [11]Zucca E, Dreyling M, Group EGW: Gastric marginal zone lymphoma of MALT type: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2010, 21(Suppl 5):v175-v176.
• [12]Grol R, Grimshaw J: From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet 2003, 362:1225-1230.
• [13]Berrios-Rivera JP, Fang S, Cabanillas ME, Cabanillas F, Lu H, Du XL: Variations in chemotherapy and radiation therapy in a large nationwide and community-based cohort of elderly patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Am J Clin Oncol 2007, 30:163-171.
• [14]Friedberg JW, Taylor MD, Cerhan JR, Flowers CR, Dillon H, Farber CM, Rogers ES, Hainsworth JD, Wong EK, Vose JM, et al.: Follicular lymphoma in the United States: first report of the national LymphoCare study. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27:1202-1208.
• [15]Wennekes L, Ottevanger PB, Raemaekers JM, Schouten HC, de Kok MW, Punt CJ, Grol RP, Wollersheim HC, Hermens RP: Development and measurement of guideline-based indicators for patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29:1436-1444.
• [16]Abrams RA, Winter KA, Regine WF, Safran H, Hoffman JP, Lustig R, Konski AA, Benson AB, Macdonald JS, Rich TA, Willett CG: Failure to adhere to protocol specified radiation therapy guidelines was associated with decreased survival in RTOG 9704–a phase III trial of adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy for patients with resected adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012, 82:809-816.
• [17]Beasley JM, Kwan ML, Chen WY, Weltzien EK, Kroenke CH, Lu W, Nechuta SJ, Cadmus-Bertram L, Patterson RE, Sternfeld B, et al.: Meeting the physical activity guidelines and survival after breast cancer: findings from the after breast cancer pooling project. Breast cancer res treat 2012, 131:637-643.
• [18]Schwentner L, Wolters R, Wischnewsky M, Kreienberg R, Wockel A: Survival of patients with bilateral versus unilateral breast cancer and impact of guideline adherent adjuvant treatment: a multi-centre cohort study of 5292 patients. Breast Edinburgh Scotland 2012, 21:171-177.
• [19]Varga D, Wischnewsky M, Atassi Z, Wolters R, Geyer V, Strunz K, Kreienberg R, Woeckel A: Does guideline-adherent therapy improve the outcome for early-onset breast cancer patients? Oncology 2010, 78:189-195.
• [20]Visser BC, Ma Y, Zak Y, Poultsides GA, Norton JA, Rhoads KF: Failure to comply with NCCN guidelines for the management of pancreatic cancer compromises outcomes. HPB off j Int Hepato Pancreato Biliary Assoc 2012, 14:539-547.
• [21]Grol R, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S, Veld C, Rutten G, Mokkink H: Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. BMJ Clin res ed 1998, 317:858-861.
• [22]Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M: Improving patient care; the implementation of change in clinical practice. Butterworth: Elsevier; 2005.
• [23]Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud PA, Rubin HR: Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. Jama 1999, 282:1458-1465.
• [24]Fleuren M, Wiefferink K, Paulussen T: Determinants of innovation within health care organizations: literature review and Delphi study. Int j quality health care j Int Soc Quality Health Care/ISQua 2004, 16:107-123.
• [25]Grol R, Wensing M: What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med j Australia 2004, 180:S57-S60.
• [26]Oostenbrink JB, Buijs-Van Der Woude T, van Agthoven M, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF: Unit costs of inpatient hospital days. PharmacoEconomics 2003, 21:263-271.
• [27]Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Tan SS, Bouwmans CAM: Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Rotterdam: College van zorgverzekeringen; 2010.
• [28]Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, Whitty P, Eccles MP, Matowe L, Shirran L, et al.: Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess Winchester, England 2004, 8:1-72. iii-iv
• [29]Prior M, Guerin M, Grimmer-Somers K: The effectiveness of clinical guideline implementation strategies–a synthesis of systematic review findings. J Eval Clin Pract 2008, 14:888-897.