The differential needs and expectations from general practitioners in oncology between high-income countries and low- and-middle-income countries: results from a survey of Canadian and Nepali oncologists.

Background: To address the shortage of oncologists in the wake of the rapidly increasing global cancer burden, general practitioners of oncology (GPOs) have been added to cancer care teams worldwide. GPOs are family physicians with additional training in oncology and their roles differ by both country and region. In this study, we aimed to learn about the roles and expectations of GPOs from the perspective of oncologists in Canada and Nepal. Methods: A survey was designed and administered to Canadian and Nepali Oncologists between February and November 2022 using Research Electronic Data Capture, a secure web-based software platform hosted at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Participants were recruited through personal networks/social media in Nepal and the survey was distributed through an email list provided by the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists. Results: The survey received 48 responses from Canadian and 7 responses from Nepali oncologists. Canadian respondents indicated that in terms of educational content delivery, clinics with oncologists followed by didactic lectures by oncologists were thought to be the most effective, followed by a small group learning and online education. Nepali oncologists also indicated didactic lectures by oncologists and small group learning would be the most effective teaching techniques, followed by online education and clinics with oncologists. Critical knowledge domains and skills most relevant for GPO training identified by Canadian respondents were managing pain and other common symptoms of cancers, as well as treatment of common side effects, followed by goals of care discussion, post-treatment surveillance for recurrence, and the management of long-term complications from treatment. Respondents from Nepal, however, suggested an approach to diagnosis to patient with increased risk of cancer, and cancer staging were the most critical knowledge domains and skills. The majority of oncologists in both countries thought a training program of 6-12 months was optimal. Conclusion: We found many similarities in oncologist's opinions of GPOs between the two countries, however, there were also some notable differences such as the need to provide cancer screening services in Nepal. This highlights the need to tailor GPO training programs based on local context.

Implementing Next-Generation Sequencing Process Changes to Increase Capacity and Improve Timeliness of Molecular Biomarker Profiling for Lung Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Faced with expansion of molecular tumor biomarker profiling, the molecular genetics laboratory at Kingston Health Science Centre experienced significant pressures to maintain the provincially mandated 2-week turnaround time (TAT) for lung cancer (LC) patients. We used quality improvement methodology to identify opportunities for improved efficiencies and report the impact of the initiative. METHODS: We set a target of reducing average TAT from accessioning to clinical molecular lab report for LC patients. Process measures included percentage of cases reaching TAT within target and number of cases. We developed a value stream map and used lean methodology to identify baseline inefficiencies. Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles were implemented to streamline, standardize, and automate laboratory workflows. Statistical process control (SPC) charts assessed for significance by special cause variation. RESULTS: A total of 257 LC cases were included (39 baseline January-May 2021; 218 post-expansion of testing June 2021). The average time for baseline TAT was 12.8 days, peaking at 23.4 days after expansion of testing, and improved to 13.9 days following improvement interventions, demonstrating statistical significance by special cause variation (nonrandom variation) on SPC charts. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of standardized manual and automated laboratory processes improved timeliness of biomarker reporting despite the increasing volume of testing at our center.

Developing a method to estimate practice denominators for a national Canadian electronic medical record database.

BACKGROUND: Calculating disease prevalence requires both a numerator (number of persons with a disease) and a matching denominator (the 'population at risk' being studied). Determining primary care practice denominators is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a method to calculate primary care practice denominators. METHODS: We compared a 'corrected yearly contact group', or practice population, with the number of patients enrolled with practices. The yearly contact group was the set of patients with a visit noted in the electronic medical records during the past year. The correction factor was the proportion of patients that reported contacting their physician in the past year. Eighty-one physicians from Toronto and Kingston, Ontario, provided data. The main outcome measure was the ratio of practice population to the number of enrolled patients. Other measures included the change in ratio over 2 years, differences between locations, and differences by provider, practice and patient characteristics. RESULTS: The ratio of practice population to enrolled patients was 1.03 in 2010 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.05) and 1.03 in 2011 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.05). There was no change in the ratio over time. Ratios by location, provider or practice characteristics differed by less than 10%. There was a slight under-estimation of practice population for younger male patients and over-estimation for female patients. CONCLUSION: This method provided a denominator that was reasonably similar to the enrolled population and was stable over time and by location, provider and practice characteristics. In regions without patient enrollment, this may provide an estimate of practice denominators.

Training General Practitioners in Oncology: Lessons Learned From a Cross-Sectional Survey of GPOs in Canada.

PURPOSE: Many countries face a significant shortage of medical oncologists. To mitigate this problem, some countries, including Canada, have established training programs for general practitioners in oncology (GPOs), which train family physicians (FPs) in the fundamentals of cancer care. This type of GPO training model may be useful in other countries facing similar challenges. Therefore, Canadian GPOs were surveyed to learn from their experiences and inform the development of similar programs in other countries. METHODS: A survey was designed and administered to Canadian GPOs to understand the methods and outcomes of GPO training and practice in the Canadian context. The survey was active from July 2021 to April 2022. Participants were recruited through personal and provincial networks and an email list provided by the Canadian GPO network. RESULTS: The survey received 37 responses for an estimated response rate of 18%. Although only 38% of respondents indicated that family medicine training sufficiently prepared them to care for patients with cancer, 90% indicated that GPO training did. Clinics with oncologists were found to be the most effective mode of learning, followed by small group learning and online education. Critical knowledge domains and skills most relevant for GPO training were identified as the treatment of side effects, symptom management, palliative care, and breaking bad news. CONCLUSION: Participants in this survey felt that a dedicated GPO training program offered value beyond family medicine residency in preparing providers to adequately care for patients with cancer. GPO training can be done effectively through virtual and hybrid content delivery. Critical knowledge domains and skills identified as the most important in this survey may be valuable for other groups and nations implementing similar training programs to increase their oncology workforce.

Assessing methods for measurement of clinical outcomes and quality of care in primary care practices.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the appropriateness of potential data sources for the population of performance indicators for primary care (PC) practices. METHODS: This project was a cross sectional study of 7 multidisciplinary primary care teams in Ontario, Canada. Practices were recruited and 5-7 physicians per practice agreed to participate in the study. Patients of participating physicians (20-30) were recruited sequentially as they presented to attend a visit. Data collection included patient, provider and practice surveys, chart abstraction and linkage to administrative data sets. Matched pairs analysis was used to examine the differences in the observed results for each indicator obtained using multiple data sources. RESULTS: Seven teams, 41 physicians, 94 associated staff and 998 patients were recruited. The survey response rate was 81% for patients, 93% for physicians and 83% for associated staff. Chart audits were successfully completed on all but 1 patient and linkage to administrative data was successful for all subjects. There were significant differences noted between the data collection methods for many measures. No single method of data collection was best for all outcomes. For most measures of technical quality of care chart audit was the most accurate method of data collection. Patient surveys were more accurate for immunizations, chronic disease advice/information dispensed, some general health promotion items and possibly for medication use. Administrative data appears useful for indicators including chronic disease diagnosis and osteoporosis/ breast screening. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple data collection methods are required for a comprehensive assessment of performance in primary care practices. The choice of which methods are best for any one particular study or quality improvement initiative requires careful consideration of the biases that each method might introduce into the results. In this study, both patients and providers were willing to participate in and consent to, the collection and linkage of information from multiple sources that would be required for such assessments.

Training General Practitioners in Oncology: A Needs Assessment Survey From Nepal.

PURPOSE: Nepal lacks enough cancer care providers to address the growing burden of cancer in the country. One way of addressing this issue is to train general practitioners (GPs) in oncology (GPOs) so that they can task-share and task-shift oncology care. However, limited information is available regarding the current level of oncology expertise of Nepali GPs and whether they perceive a need for, and have an interest in, such a GPO training program if available in Nepal. METHODS: A survey was distributed to GPs in Nepal to collect data on current oncology training and clinical practice and evaluate levels of interest and need for a GPO training program. The survey was distributed electronically from February to July 2021. RESULTS: The survey obtained 71 individual responses from GPs in Nepal. The majority of respondents were male (87%), and most worked as consultants or senior consultants (63%). Only 6% of respondents had a mandatory oncology rotation during their GP training, and only 15% indicated that their GP training had adequately prepared them to care for patients with cancer. Ninety-six percent of respondents perceived a need for a GPO training program in Nepal, with 94% indicating an interest in enrolling in such a program and 71% indicating that they were very interested. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate an urgent need for and an encouraging interest in establishing a GPO training program in Nepal. These findings will be used to guide the development and implementation of this type of program.

Performance feedback: an exploratory study to examine the acceptability and impact for interdisciplinary primary care teams.

BACKGROUND: This mixed methods study was designed to explore the acceptability and impact of feedback of team performance data to primary care interdisciplinary teams. METHODS: Seven interdisciplinary teams were offered a one-hour, facilitated performance feedback session presenting data from a comprehensive, previously-conducted evaluation, selecting highlights such as performance on chronic disease management, access, patient satisfaction and team function. RESULTS: Several recurrent themes emerged from participants' surveys and two rounds of interviews within three months of the feedback session. Team performance measurement and feedback was welcomed across teams and disciplines. This feedback could build the team, the culture, and the capacity for quality improvement. However, existing performance indicators do not equally reflect the role of different disciplines within an interdisciplinary team. Finally, the effect of team performance feedback on intentions to improve performance was hindered by a poor understanding of how the team could use the data. CONCLUSIONS: The findings further our understanding of how performance feedback may engage interdisciplinary team members in improving the quality of primary care and the unique challenges specific to these settings. There is a need to develop a shared sense of responsibility and agenda for quality improvement. Therefore, more efforts to develop flexible and interactive performance-reporting structures (that better reflect contributions from all team members) in which teams could specify the information and audience may assist in promoting quality improvement.

A phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating dextromethorphan plus slow-release morphine for chronic cancer pain relief in terminally ill patients.

This multicenter trial examined the efficacy and safety of dextromethorphan (DM) as an enhancer of analgesia and modulator of opioid tolerance in cancer patients with pain. Eligible patients were randomized to slow-release morphine plus DM or slow-release morphine plus placebo. The initial DM dose was 60 mg four times daily for seven days, with an increase to 120 mg four times daily, if tolerated, for another seven days. During the study, patients recorded medications and scores for pain, nausea, drowsiness, and insomnia. Sixty-five patients were randomized. Although average pain scores (12.6 vs. 15.8), number of breakthrough doses (9 vs. 11.3), and change in total morphine consumption (550.9 mg vs. 597.1mg) were less in the DM group than placebo group, the differences were not statistically significant (P=0.31-0.33). Side-effect scores were not statistically significantly different. Dizziness was greater in the DM (58%) than placebo (36%) group. This study showed a statistically nonsignificant enhancement of analgesia or modulation of opioid tolerance in cancer patients with pain when DM was added to morphine. Participants receiving the DM also had more toxicity, particularly dizziness. This toxicity and the limited evidence of effect do not support the use of DM to enhance opioid analgesia or to modulate opioid tolerance in cancer patients.