Han Bao1, Fengjuan Yang1, Shaofei Su1, Xinyu Wang1, Meiqi Zhang1, Yaming Xiao1, Hao Jiang1, Jiaying Wang1, Meina Liu2. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Public Health College, Harbin Medical University, 157 Baojian Road, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Public Health College, Harbin Medical University, 157 Baojian Road, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang, People's Republic of China. liumeina369@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Substantial gaps exist between clinical practice and evidence-based cancer care, potentially leading to adverse clinical outcomes and decreased quality of life for cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of clinical pathways as a tool for improving quality of cancer care, using breast, colon, and rectal cancer pathways as demonstrations. METHODS: Newly diagnosed patients with invasive breast, colon, and rectal cancer were enrolled as pre-pathway groups, while patients with the same diagnoses treated according to clinical pathways were recruited for post-pathway groups. RESULTS: Compliance with preoperative core biopsy or fine-needle aspiration, utilization of sentinel lymph node biopsy, and proportion of patients whose tumor hormone receptor status was stated in pathology report were significantly increased after implementation of clinical pathway for breast cancer. For colon cancer, compliance with two care processes was significantly improved: surgical resection with anastomosis and resection of at least 12 lymph nodes. Regarding rectal cancer, there was a significant increase in compliance with preoperative evaluation of depth of tumor invasion, total mesorectal excision treatment of middle- or low-position rectal cancer, and proportion of patients who had undergone rectal cancer surgery whose pathology report included margin status. Moreover, total length of hospital stay was decreased remarkably for all three cancer types, and postoperative complications remained unchanged following implementation of the clinical pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical pathways can improve compliance with standard care by implementing evidence-based quality indicators in daily practice, which could serve as a useful tool for narrowing the gap between clinical practice and evidence-based care.
PURPOSE: Substantial gaps exist between clinical practice and evidence-based cancer care, potentially leading to adverse clinical outcomes and decreased quality of life for cancerpatients. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of clinical pathways as a tool for improving quality of cancer care, using breast, colon, and rectal cancer pathways as demonstrations. METHODS: Newly diagnosed patients with invasive breast, colon, and rectal cancer were enrolled as pre-pathway groups, while patients with the same diagnoses treated according to clinical pathways were recruited for post-pathway groups. RESULTS: Compliance with preoperative core biopsy or fine-needle aspiration, utilization of sentinel lymph node biopsy, and proportion of patients whose tumorhormone receptor status was stated in pathology report were significantly increased after implementation of clinical pathway for breast cancer. For colon cancer, compliance with two care processes was significantly improved: surgical resection with anastomosis and resection of at least 12 lymph nodes. Regarding rectal cancer, there was a significant increase in compliance with preoperative evaluation of depth of tumor invasion, total mesorectal excision treatment of middle- or low-position rectal cancer, and proportion of patients who had undergone rectal cancer surgery whose pathology report included margin status. Moreover, total length of hospital stay was decreased remarkably for all three cancer types, and postoperative complications remained unchanged following implementation of the clinical pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical pathways can improve compliance with standard care by implementing evidence-based quality indicators in daily practice, which could serve as a useful tool for narrowing the gap between clinical practice and evidence-based care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Clinical pathway; Quality improvement; Quality of care
Authors: Thomas Rotter; Leigh Kinsman; Erica James; Andreas Machotta; Jon Willis; Pamela Snow; Joachim Kugler Journal: Eval Health Prof Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: L A Beaupre; J G Cinats; A Senthilselvan; D Lier; C A Jones; A Scharfenberger; D W C Johnston; L D Saunders Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2006-10
Authors: Jan M Eberth; Ying Xu; Grace L Smith; Yu Shen; Jing Jiang; Thomas A Buchholz; Kelly K Hunt; Dalliah M Black; Sharon H Giordano; Gary J Whitman; Wei Yang; Chan Shen; Linda Elting; Benjamin D Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Erin M Siegel; Paul B Jacobsen; Mokenge Malafa; William Fulp; Michelle Fletcher; Ji-Hyun Lee; Jesusa Corazon R Smith; Richard Brown; Richard Levine; Thomas Cartwright; Guillermo Abesada-Terk; George Kim; Carlos Alemany; Douglas Faig; Philip Sharp; Merry-Jennifer Markham; David Shibata Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Massimiliano Panella; Sara Marchisio; Romeo Brambilla; Kris Vanhaecht; Francesco Di Stanislao Journal: BMC Med Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Gregory Hanson; Keith W Lyons; Debra A Fournier; S Scott Lollis; Eric D Martin; Kurt K Rhynhart; Wanda J Handel; Kevin J McGuire; William A Abdu; Adam M Pearson Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2019-03-05