Rebecca J Bergin1,2, Robert J S Thomas3, Kathryn Whitfield4, Victoria White1,5. 1. Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Department of General Practice/Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Department of Health and Human Services Victoria, Victorian Government, Melbourne, Australia. 5. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Care pathway policies for cancer aim to reduce variation and improve the quality of patient care, and there is increasing evidence that adherence to such pathways is associated with improved survival and lower health care costs. Australia is implementing Optimal Care Pathways (OCPs) for several cancers, including colorectal cancer, but studies evaluating how well care conforms to OCP recommendations are rare. This study examined concordance between OCP recommendations and colorectal cancer care prior to policy rollout and disparities for vulnerable populations. METHOD: Cross-sectional survey (2012-2014) of cancer registry-identified colorectal cancer patients aged ≥40 approached within 6 months of diagnosis (n = 433), their general practitioner (GP, n = 290), and specialist (n = 144) in Victoria, Australia. We measured concordance with 10 OCP recommendations and variation by geography, socio-economic, and health insurance status using age- and sex-adjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: Use of recommended GP investigations varied from 66% for colonoscopy to 13% for digital rectal exam. Recommended waiting times to receive a colonoscopy, see a specialist after referral, and begin adjuvant chemotherapy were exceeded for around a third of patients. Twenty-eight percent of specialists reported a pretreatment multidisciplinary meeting. Most patients received surgery in a hospital with an intensive care unit (92%) and chemotherapy for high risk disease (84%). In general, care was similar across sociodemographic groups. However, receipt of GP investigations tended to be higher and waiting times longer for rural, low socio-economic, and non-privately insured patients. For example, receiving a colonoscopy within 4 weeks was significantly less likely for rural (51%) than urban (78%) patients (odds ratio = 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.79). CONCLUSION: Prior to implementation, a significant proportion of colorectal cancer patients received care that did not meet OCP recommendations. Low concordance and inequities for rural and disadvantaged populations highlight components of the pathway to target during policy implementation.
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Care pathway policies for cancer aim to reduce variation and improve the quality of patient care, and there is increasing evidence that adherence to such pathways is associated with improved survival and lower health care costs. Australia is implementing Optimal Care Pathways (OCPs) for several cancers, including colorectal cancer, but studies evaluating how well care conforms to OCP recommendations are rare. This study examined concordance between OCP recommendations and colorectal cancer care prior to policy rollout and disparities for vulnerable populations. METHOD: Cross-sectional survey (2012-2014) of cancer registry-identified colorectal cancer patients aged ≥40 approached within 6 months of diagnosis (n = 433), their general practitioner (GP, n = 290), and specialist (n = 144) in Victoria, Australia. We measured concordance with 10 OCP recommendations and variation by geography, socio-economic, and health insurance status using age- and sex-adjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: Use of recommended GP investigations varied from 66% for colonoscopy to 13% for digital rectal exam. Recommended waiting times to receive a colonoscopy, see a specialist after referral, and begin adjuvant chemotherapy were exceeded for around a third of patients. Twenty-eight percent of specialists reported a pretreatment multidisciplinary meeting. Most patients received surgery in a hospital with an intensive care unit (92%) and chemotherapy for high risk disease (84%). In general, care was similar across sociodemographic groups. However, receipt of GP investigations tended to be higher and waiting times longer for rural, low socio-economic, and non-privately insured patients. For example, receiving a colonoscopy within 4 weeks was significantly less likely for rural (51%) than urban (78%) patients (odds ratio = 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.79). CONCLUSION: Prior to implementation, a significant proportion of colorectal cancer patients received care that did not meet OCP recommendations. Low concordance and inequities for rural and disadvantaged populations highlight components of the pathway to target during policy implementation.
Authors: Matthew Castelo; Colin Sue-Chue-Lam; Lawrence Paszat; Teruko Kishibe; Adena S Scheer; Bettina E Hansen; Nancy N Baxter Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-12 Impact factor: 3.752