A novel method for continuous measurements of clinical practice guideline adherence.

Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines (hereafter 'guidelines') are crucial in providing evidence-based recommendations for physicians and multidisciplinary teams to make informed decisions regarding diagnostics and treatment in various diseases, including cancer. While guideline implementation has been shown to reduce (unwanted) variability and improve outcome of care, monitoring of adherence to guidelines remains challenging. Real-world data collected from cancer registries can provide a continuous source for monitoring adherence levels. In this work, we describe a novel structured approach to guideline evaluation using real-world data that enables continuous monitoring. This method was applied to endometrial cancer patients in the Netherlands and implemented through a prototype web-based dashboard that enables interactive usage and supports various analyses. Method: The guideline under study was parsed into clinical decision trees (CDTs) and an information standard was drawn up. A dataset from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) was used and data items from both instruments were mapped. By comparing guideline recommendations with real-world data an adherence classification was determined. The developed prototype can be used to identify and prioritize potential topics for guideline updates. Results: CDTs revealed 68 data items for recording in an information standard. Thirty-two data items from the NCR were mapped onto information standard data items. Four CDTs could sufficiently be populated with NCR data. Conclusion: The developed methodology can evaluate a guideline to identify potential improvements in recommendations and the success of the implementation strategy. In addition, it is able to identify patient and disease characteristics that influence decision-making in clinical practice. The method supports a cyclical process of developing, implementing and evaluating guidelines and can be scaled to other diseases and settings. It contributes to a learning healthcare cycle that integrates real-world data with external knowledge.

Using guideline-based clinical decision support in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: A prospective, multicenter concordance study.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team meetings formulate guideline-based individual treatment plans based on patient and disease characteristics and motivate reasons for deviation. Clinical decision trees could support multidisciplinary teams to adhere more accurately to guidelines. Every clinical decision tree is tailored to a specific decision moment in a care pathway and is composed of patient and disease characteristics leading to a guideline recommendation. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated (1) the concordance between multidisciplinary team and clinical decision tree recommendations and (2) the completeness of patient and disease characteristics available during multidisciplinary team meetings to apply clinical decision trees such that it results in a guideline recommendation. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational concordance study evaluated 17 selected clinical decision trees, based on the prevailing Dutch guidelines for breast, colorectal and prostate cancers. In cases with sufficient data, concordance between multidisciplinary team and clinical decision tree recommendations was classified as concordant, conditional concordant (multidisciplinary team specified a prerequisite for the recommendation) and non-concordant. RESULTS: Fifty-nine multidisciplinary team meetings were attended in 8 different hospitals, and 355 cases were included. For 296 cases (83.4%), all patient data were available for providing an unconditional clinical decision tree recommendation. In 59 cases (16.6%), insufficient data were available resulting in provisional clinical decision tree recommendations. From the 296 successfully generated clinical decision tree recommendations, the multidisciplinary team recommendations were concordant in 249 (84.1%) cases, conditional concordant in 24 (8.1%) cases and non-concordant in 23 (7.8%) cases of which in 7 (2.4%) cases the reason for deviation from the clinical decision tree generated guideline recommendation was not motivated. CONCLUSION: The observed concordance of recommendations between multidisciplinary teams and clinical decision trees and data completeness during multidisciplinary team meetings in this study indicate a potential role for implementation of clinical decision trees to support multidisciplinary team decision-making.

Clinical decision trees support systematic evaluation of multidisciplinary team recommendations.

PURPOSE: EUSOMA's recommendation that "each patient has to be fully informed about each step in the diagnostic and therapeutic pathway" could be supported by guideline-based clinical decision trees (CDTs). The Dutch breast cancer guideline has been modeled into CDTs ( www.oncoguide.nl ). Prerequisites for adequate CDT usage are availability of necessary patient data at the time of decision-making and to consider all possible treatment alternatives provided in the CDT. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study evaluated 394 randomly selected female patients with non-metastatic breast cancer between 2012 and 2015. Four pivotal CDTs were selected. Two researchers analyzed patient records to determine to which degree patient data required per CDT were available at the time of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting and how often multiple alternatives were actually reported. RESULTS: The four selected CDTs were indication for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, preoperative and adjuvant systemic treatment, and immediate breast reconstruction. For 70%, 13%, 97% and 13% of patients, respectively, all necessary data were available. The two most frequent underreported data-items were "clinical M-stage" (87%) and "assessable mammography" (28%). Treatment alternatives were reported by MDTs in 32% of patients regarding primary treatment and in 28% regarding breast reconstruction. CONCLUSION: Both the availability of data in patient records essential for guideline-based recommendations and the reporting of possible treatment alternatives of the investigated CDTs were low. To meet EUSOMA's requirements, information that is supposed to be implicitly known must be explicated by MDTs. Moreover, MDTs have to adhere to clear definitions of data-items in their reporting.