Literature DB >> 27193412

Barriers to Completing Delayed Breast Reconstruction Following Mastectomy: a Critical Need for Patient and Clinician Education.

Aleksandra Ogrodnik1,2, Susan MacLennan3,4, Donald Weaver5,6, Ted James7.   

Abstract

Rates of breast reconstruction following mastectomy vary widely, and little is known about why women who originally express an interest in breast reconstruction do not receive it. Improved documentation of clinical decision-making is one of the potential benefits of the electronic health record (EHR), and may serve as a tool to enhance patient-centered, clinical outcomes research. The goals of this study were to explore patterns in delayed reconstruction (DR), identify barriers to follow through, and to determine the adequacy of EHR documentation in providing information about decision-making for breast reconstruction. Retrospective EHR review of women undergoing mastectomy, 2008-2012, was conducted in an academic medical center in New England. Data included patient demographics, cancer stage, co-morbidity index, post-mastectomy reconstruction status, and documented decision-making regarding reconstruction. Of 367 women who had undergone a total mastectomy, 219 did not receive immediate reconstruction. Of these, 24.6 % expressed no interest in DR, 21.9 % expressed interest but were still pending the procedure, and 5.9 % had completed DR. Of decision-making regarding breast reconstruction, 47.5 % lacked documentation. Median follow-up was 34 months. Reasons for not following through with DR included poor timing (25 %), indecision (17 %), desired method of reconstruction not available at treating facility (10 %), persistent obesity (8.3 %), continued smoking (4 %), and reason not specified (35 %). Many women do not receive breast reconstruction despite expressing an initial interest in the procedure. Reasons were multi-factorial and the extent of documentation was inconsistent. Further exploration of potential barriers to breast reconstruction as well as opportunities to enhance shared decision-making may serve to improve patient experience and satisfaction following mastectomy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Breast reconstruction; Decision-making; Quality improvement

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27193412     DOI: 10.1007/s13187-016-1046-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Educ        ISSN: 0885-8195            Impact factor:   2.037


  20 in total

1.  Breast reconstruction in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Authors:  C J Callaghan; E Couto; M J Kerin; R M Rainsbury; W D George; A D Purushotham
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 6.939

2.  An analysis of immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction frequency using the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database.

Authors:  Shailesh Agarwal; Lisa Pappas; Leigh Neumayer; Jayant Agarwal
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2011-05-27       Impact factor: 2.431

3.  Receipt of delayed breast reconstruction after mastectomy: do women revisit the decision?

Authors:  Amy K Alderman; Sarah T Hawley; Monica Morrow; Barbara Salem; Ann Hamilton; John J Graff; Steven Katz
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Breast reconstruction practices in north america: current trends and future priorities.

Authors:  Edwin G Wilkins; Amy K Alderman
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.314

5.  Factors influencing the use of breast reconstruction postmastectomy: a National Cancer Database study.

Authors:  M Morrow; S K Scott; H R Menck; T A Mustoe; D P Winchester
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 6.113

6.  How frequent is postmastectomy breast reconstructive surgery? A study linking two statewide databases.

Authors:  A P Polednak
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Using complications associated with postmastectomy radiation and immediate breast reconstruction to improve surgical decision making.

Authors:  Dara Christante; SuEllen J Pommier; Brian S Diggs; Bethany T Samuelson; AiLien Truong; Carol Marquez; Juliana Hansen; Arpana M Naik; John T Vetto; Rodney F Pommier
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2010-09

Review 8.  Definition, structure, content, use and impacts of electronic health records: a review of the research literature.

Authors:  Kristiina Häyrinen; Kaija Saranto; Pirkko Nykänen
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2007-10-22       Impact factor: 4.046

9.  "Smart Forms" in an Electronic Medical Record: documentation-based clinical decision support to improve disease management.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Schnipper; Jeffrey A Linder; Matvey B Palchuk; Jonathan S Einbinder; Qi Li; Anatoly Postilnik; Blackford Middleton
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2008-04-24       Impact factor: 4.497

10.  A model to support shared decision making in electronic health records systems.

Authors:  Leslie Lenert; Robert Dunlea; Guilherme Del Fiol; Leslie Kelly Hall
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  5 in total

1.  Factors associated with the desire to undergo post-mastectomy breast reconstruction in a Mexican breast cancer center.

Authors:  Paulina Bajonero-Canonico; Ana S Ferrigno; Jorge A Saldaña-Rodriguez; David E Hinojosa-Gonzalez; Cristel G de la O-Maldonado; Carlos de la Cruz-de la Cruz; Brizio Moreno-Jaime; Mariela Hernandez-Pavon; Jose Moral-de la Rubia; Melina Miaja-Avila; Cynthia Villarreal-Garza
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Improved immediate breast reconstruction as a result of oncoplastic multidisciplinary meeting.

Authors:  Mohsen M El Gammal; Maria Lim; Rajan Uppal; Richard Sainsbury
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)       Date:  2017-04-28

Review 3.  Shared Decision-Making in Breast Reconstruction for Breast Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Xuejing Li; Meiqi Meng; Junqiang Zhao; Xiaoyan Zhang; Dan Yang; Jiaxin Fang; Junxin Wang; Liu Han; Yufang Hao
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 2.711

4.  Predictors of delayed breast reconstruction in the Netherlands: a 5-year follow-up study in stage I-III breast cancer patients.

Authors:  L S E van Egdom; K M de Ligt; L de Munck; L B Koppert; M A M Mureau; H A Rakhorst; S Siesling
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 4.239

Review 5.  Opportunities for personalised follow-up care among patients with breast cancer: A scoping review to identify preference-sensitive decisions.

Authors:  Kelly M de Ligt; Laurentine S E van Egdom; Linetta B Koppert; Sabine Siesling; Janine A van Til
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 2.328

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.