Literature DB >> 33450804

National Thoracic Surgery Standards Implementation: Barriers, Enablers, and Opportunities.

Angel Arnaout1,2, Anubha Prashad1, Nadine Dunk1, Jess Rogers1, Annemarie Edwards1, Mary Argent-Katwala1, Christian Finley1,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis and surgical treatment decision making for thoracic cancers is complex. Moreover, there is demonstrated variability in how each province in Canada delivers cancer care, resulting in disparities in patient outcomes. Recently, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) published pan-Canadian evidence-based standards for the care of thoracic surgery cancer patients. This study was undertaken to assess the degree to which these standards were currently met in practice and to further understand the determinants to their implementation nationally.
METHODS: This study was undertaken in two parts: (1) a national survey of thoracic surgeons to assess the perceived extent of implementation of these standards in their institution and province; and (2) formation of a focus group with a representative sample of thoracic surgeons across Canada in a qualitative study to understand the determinants of successful standards implementation.
RESULTS: 37 surgeons (33% response rate) participated in the survey; 78% were from academic hospitals. The top categories of standards that were under-implemented included (a) quality assurance processes, data collection and clinician audit and feedback, and (b) ongoing regional planning and workload assessments for thoracic surgeons, and (c) pathology turnaround time target of two weeks and the use of a standardized synoptic pathology report format. Enablers, barriers, and opportunities for standards implementation contextualized the discussion within the focus group.
CONCLUSION: Study results demonstrated variation in the implementation of surgery standards across Canada and identified the determinants to the delivery of high quality surgical care. Future work will need to include the promotion and development of quality improvement strategies and effective resource allocation that is aligned with the implementation of thoracic cancer surgery standards in order to improve patient outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Thoracic; barriers; cancer; enablers; implementation; standards; surgery

Year:  2021        PMID: 33450804      PMCID: PMC7903269          DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28010043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Oncol        ISSN: 1198-0052            Impact factor:   3.677


  25 in total

1.  Factors that impact turnaround time of surgical pathology specimens in an academic institution.

Authors:  Samip Patel; Jennifer B Smith; Ekaterina Kurbatova; Jeannette Guarner
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 3.466

2.  The Thoracic Surgery Scoring System (Thoracoscore): risk model for in-hospital death in 15,183 patients requiring thoracic surgery.

Authors:  Pierre Emmanuel Falcoz; Massimo Conti; Laurent Brouchet; Sidney Chocron; Marc Puyraveau; Mariette Mercier; Joseph Philippe Etievent; Marcel Dahan
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2007-01-09       Impact factor: 5.209

3.  Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

Authors:  Allison Tong; Peter Sainsbury; Jonathan Craig
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2007-09-14       Impact factor: 2.038

4.  A look at the thoracic surgery workforce in Canada: how demographics and scope of practice may impact future workforce needs.

Authors:  Sean C Grondin; Colin Schieman; Elizabeth Kelly; Gail Darling; Donna Maziak; Moné Palacios Mackay; Gary Gelfand
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 5.  [Accreditation in pathology. Systematic presentation and documentation of activities in pathology].

Authors:  C Röcken; H Manke
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.011

6.  Burnout and career satisfaction among American surgeons.

Authors:  Tait D Shanafelt; Charles M Balch; Gerald J Bechamps; Thomas Russell; Lotte Dyrbye; Daniel Satele; Paul Collicott; Paul J Novotny; Jeff Sloan; Julie A Freischlag
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Practice Feedback Interventions: 15 Suggestions for Optimizing Effectiveness.

Authors:  Jamie C Brehaut; Heather L Colquhoun; Kevin W Eva; Kelly Carroll; Anne Sales; Susan Michie; Noah Ivers; Jeremy M Grimshaw
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Dutch Lung Surgery Audit: A National Audit Comprising Lung and Thoracic Surgery Patients.

Authors:  Martijn Ten Berge; Naomi Beck; David Jonathan Heineman; Ronald Damhuis; Willem Hans Steup; Pieter Jan van Huijstee; Jan Peter Eerenberg; Eelco Veen; Alexander Maat; Michel Versteegh; Thomas van Brakel; Wilhemina Hendrika Schreurs; Michel Wilhelmus Wouters
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2018-04-22       Impact factor: 4.330

9.  Lessons learned from the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing: the Dutch model for quality assurance in lung cancer treatment.

Authors:  Naomi Beck; Fieke Hoeijmakers; Erwin M Wiegman; Hans J M Smit; Franz M Schramel; Willem H Steup; Ad F T M Verhagen; Wilhelmina H Schreurs; Michel W J M Wouters
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.895

10.  Reducing turnaround time of surgical pathology reports in pathology and laboratory medicine departments.

Authors:  Saeed Alshieban; Khaled Al-Surimi
Journal:  BMJ Qual Improv Rep       Date:  2015-11-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.