PURPOSE: Clinical pathways are an important tool used to manage the quality in health care by standardizing processes. This study evaluated the impact of the implementation of a peer-reviewed clinical pathway in a large, integrated National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center Network. METHODS: In 2003, we implemented a clinical pathway for the management of bone metastases with palliative radiation therapy. In 2009, we required the entry of management decisions into an online tool that records pathway choices. The pathway specified 1 or 5 fractions for symptomatic bone metastases with the option of 10-14 fractions for certain clinical situations. The data were obtained from 13 integrated sites (3 central academic, 10 community locations) from 2003 through 2010. RESULTS: In this study, 7905 sites were treated with 64% of courses delivered in community practice and 36% in academic locations. Academic practices were more likely than community practices to treat with 1-5 fractions (63% vs. 23%; p < 0.0001). The number of delivered fractions decreased gradually from 2003 to 2010 for both academic and community practices (p < 0.0001); however, greater numbers of fractions were selected more often in community practices (p < 0.0001). Using multivariate logistic regression, we found that a significantly greater selection of 1-5 fractions developed after implementation online pathway monitoring (2009) with an odds ratio of 1.2 (confidence interval, 1.1-1.4) for community and 1.3 (confidence interval, 1.1-1.6) for academic practices. The mean number of fractions also decreased after online peer review from 6.3 to 6.0 for academic (p = 0.07) and 9.4 to 9.0 for community practices (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This is one of the first studies to examine the efficacy of a clinical pathway for radiation oncology in an integrated cancer network. Clinical pathway implementation appears to be effective in changing patterns of care, particularly with online clinical peer review as a valuable aid to encourage adherence to evidence-based practice.
PURPOSE: Clinical pathways are an important tool used to manage the quality in health care by standardizing processes. This study evaluated the impact of the implementation of a peer-reviewed clinical pathway in a large, integrated National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center Network. METHODS: In 2003, we implemented a clinical pathway for the management of bone metastases with palliative radiation therapy. In 2009, we required the entry of management decisions into an online tool that records pathway choices. The pathway specified 1 or 5 fractions for symptomatic bone metastases with the option of 10-14 fractions for certain clinical situations. The data were obtained from 13 integrated sites (3 central academic, 10 community locations) from 2003 through 2010. RESULTS: In this study, 7905 sites were treated with 64% of courses delivered in community practice and 36% in academic locations. Academic practices were more likely than community practices to treat with 1-5 fractions (63% vs. 23%; p < 0.0001). The number of delivered fractions decreased gradually from 2003 to 2010 for both academic and community practices (p < 0.0001); however, greater numbers of fractions were selected more often in community practices (p < 0.0001). Using multivariate logistic regression, we found that a significantly greater selection of 1-5 fractions developed after implementation online pathway monitoring (2009) with an odds ratio of 1.2 (confidence interval, 1.1-1.4) for community and 1.3 (confidence interval, 1.1-1.6) for academic practices. The mean number of fractions also decreased after online peer review from 6.3 to 6.0 for academic (p = 0.07) and 9.4 to 9.0 for community practices (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This is one of the first studies to examine the efficacy of a clinical pathway for radiation oncology in an integrated cancer network. Clinical pathway implementation appears to be effective in changing patterns of care, particularly with online clinical peer review as a valuable aid to encourage adherence to evidence-based practice.
Authors: Jennifer K Logan; Jing Jiang; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Xiudong Lei; Ying Xu; Karen E Hoffman; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Pamala A Pawloski; Gabriel A Brooks; Matthew E Nielsen; Barbara A Olson-Bullis Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Costanza M Donati; Elena Nardi; Erika Galietta; Maria L Alfieri; Giambattista Siepe; Alice Zamagni; Milly Buwenge; Gabriella Macchia; Francesco Deodato; Savino Cilla; Lidia Strigari; Silvia Cammelli; Francesco Cellini; Alessio G Morganti Journal: Clin Med Insights Oncol Date: 2021-07-22