Implementation and use of electronic synoptic cancer reporting: an explorative case study of six Norwegian pathology laboratories

Implementation Science

Roger Bjugn⁴  Gunn Marit J Barstad²  Hans Kristian Haugland¹  Bettina Casati³ 

[1] Department of Pathology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway;Department of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway;Department of Pathology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway;Department of Research Administration and Biobanking, Oslo University Hospital, Kirkeveien 166, Oslo, NO-0407, Norway

关键词: Quality improvement;    Professional practice;    Information systems;    Electronic health records;    Checklist;   

Others  :  1146742
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-014-0111-2

 received in 2014-01-21, accepted in 2014-08-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The information contained in histopathology reports on surgical resections of cancer is fundamental for both patient treatment and cancer registries. Electronic synoptic histopathology reporting is considered superior to traditional narrative reporting with respect to both completeness and feasibility of data use. An electronic template for colorectal cancer reporting was introduced in Norway in 2005, but implementation has varied greatly between different pathology departments. In 2012, four pathology departments and the Norwegian Cancer Registry started a new initiative on electronic cancer reporting. As part of this initiative, this study was undertaken to learn more about factors influencing implementation and use.

Methods

Qualitative and quantitative data were obtained from six of the 17 public pathology departments in Norway using explorative case study methodology. Methods included document studies, semi-structured interviews with key informants, and audits on actual template use. A systematic analysis of data was conducted based on theoretical models for project management, stakeholder engagement, and individual acceptance of new information technology.

Results

Most key informants had a positive view on synoptic reporting, and five departments had tested the electronic template. Of these, four had implemented the template while one department had decided not to implement it due to layout concerns. Of the four departments using the template in daily routine, one had compulsory use, two consensus based use, while the fourth had voluntary use. Annual average usage of the electronic template in the three departments with compulsory or consensus based use was 92% compared to 53% in the department with voluntary use.

Conclusions

There was a general positive attitude towards electronic synoptic reporting. Reasons for not implementing the colorectal template were specific technical and quality issues not adequately addressed by the project organization having developed the template. A formal assessment of project outcomes with a task force handling such technical issues should accordingly have been established as part of the project. After an organizational decision on implementation, perceived job relevance and practical benefits are factors important for individual template use. Consistent high long-term usage was related to a departmental environment with a consensus based decision on use.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Casati et al.; licensee BioMed Central

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Casati B, Bjugn R: Structured electronic template for histopathology reporting on colorectal carcinoma resections: five-year follow-up shows sustainable long-term quality improvement. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2012, 136:652-656.
• [2]Cross SS, Feeley KM, Angel CA: The effect of four interventions on the informational content of histopathology reports of resected colorectal carcinomas. J Clin Pathol 1998, 51:481-482.
• [3]Ellis DW: Surgical pathology reporting at the crossroads: beyond synoptic reporting. Pathology 2011, 43:404-409.
• [4]Bjugn R, Casati B, Norstein J: Structured electronic template for histopathology reports on colorectal carcinomas: a joint project by the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Norwegian Society for Pathology. Hum Pathol 2008, 39:359-367.
• [5]Srigley JR, McGowan T, Maclean A, Raby M, Ross J, Kramer S, Sawka C: Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: a population-based approach. J Surg Oncol 2009, 99:517-524.
• [6]Haugland HK, Casati B, Dorum LM, Bjugn R: Template reporting matters–a nationwide study on histopathology reporting on colorectal carcinoma resections. Hum Pathol 2011, 42:36-40.
• [7][http:/ / ous-research.no/ rab/ docs/ Rapport_med_vedlegg_Elektroniske%20 patologimaler_2013_02.pdf] webcite Elektroniske patologimaler ved kreft (Norwegian, Electronic synoptic pathology cancer reporting); []
• [8]Yin RK: Introduction. In Case study research: design and methods. 4th edition. Edited by Bickman L, Rog DJ. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2009:3-24.
• [9]Lyytinen K, Newman M: Explaining information systems change: a punctuated socio-technical change model. Eur J Inform Syst 2008, 17:589-613.
• [10]Alter S: The work system method for understanding information systems and information systems research. Comm Assoc Inform Syst 2002, 9(Article 6):90-104.
• [11]International Organization for Standardization: Guidance on project management (ISO 21500:2012). Geneva: 2012.
• [12]Grol R, Grimshaw J: From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet 2003, 362:1225-1230.
• [13]Casati B, Haugland HK, Barstad GMJ, Bjugn R: Factors affecting the implementation and use of electronic templates for histopathology cancer reporting. Pathology 2014, 146:165-168.
• [14]Davis FD: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart 1989, 13:319-340.
• [15]Venkatesh V, Bala H: Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sci 2008, 39:273-315.
• [16][http:/ / legeforeningen.no/ Fagmed/ Den-norske-patologforening/ DNP-stoff/ arsmeldinger/ 2011/ ] webcite The Norwegian Society of Pathology: Årsrapport for 2011; (Norwegian, Annual Report for 2011) []
• [17]Dicicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF: The qualitative research interview. Med Educ 2006, 40:314-321.
• [18]Simons H: Whose data are they? Ethics in case study research. In Case study research in practice. Sage, London; 2009:96-113.
• [19]Yin RK: Reporting case studies: how and what to compose. In Case study research: design and methods. 4th edition. Edited by Bickman L, Rog DJ. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2009:165-191.
• [20]Zarbo RJ: Determining customer satisfaction in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006, 130:645-649.
• [21]Maylor H: Project completion and review. In Project management. 4th edition. Pearson Education, Harlow (UK); 2010:360-383.
• [22]Valenstein PN: Formatting pathology reports: applying four design principles to improve communication and patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2008, 132:84-94.
• [23]Hassell LA, Parwani AV, Weiss L, Jones MA, Ye J: Challenges and opportunities in the adoption of College of American Pathologists checklists in electronic format: perspectives and experience of Reporting Pathology Protocols Project (RPP2) participant laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010, 134:1152-1159.
• [24]Urquhart R, Sargeant J, Porterm GA: Factors related to the implementation and use of an innovation in cancer surgery. Curr Oncol 2011, 18:271-279.
• [25][https://www.cancercare.on.ca/cms/one.aspx?portalId=1377&pageId=48158] webcite Synoptic Pathology Reporting. []
• [26]Valente TW, Davis RL: Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. Ann Am Acad Polit S S 1999, 566:55-67.
• [27]Duvalko KM, Sherar M, Sawka C: Creating a system for performance improvement in cancer care: Cancer Care Ontario's clinical governance framework. Cancer Control: Journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center 2009, 16:293-302.
• [28]Bagozzi RP: The legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. J Assoc Inf Syst 2007, 8:244-254.
• [29]Chuttur M: Overview of the Technology Acceptance Model: origins, developments and future directions. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems 2009, 9(Article 37):1-21.
• [30]Evered R, Loius MR: Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: ‘Inquiry from the inside’ and ‘Inquiry from the outside’. Acad Manage Rev 1981, 6:385-395.
• [31]Dwyer SC, Buckle JL: The space between: on being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. Int J Qual Meth 2009, 8:54-63.
• [32]Louis MR, Bartunek JM: Insider/outsider research teams: collaboration across diverse perspectives. J Manage Inquiry 1992, 1:101-110.
• [33]Thomas MD, Blacksmith J, Reno J: Utilizing insider-outsider research teams in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 2000, 10:819-828.