Measuring the quality of sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer using newly developed quality indicators: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of the quality of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has not been reported beyond the false-negative rate and sentinel lymph node identification rate. This study's purpose is to determine the feasibility of measuring 11 quality indicators (QIs) that were recently developed using a modified Delphi process. METHODS: All patients who underwent SLNB for breast cancer at a tertiary health-care center from January 1st 2005 to December 31st 2007 were identified using a SLNB registry. Patient charts were reviewed retrospectively and the QIs were abstracted. RESULTS: Nine of the 11 QIs were measurable: 7 required chart-level abstraction, 2 were confirmed at an institutional level, and 2 were immeasurable due to registry limitations. Of the 497 identified patients, 13 patients had failed SLNB, resulting in 484 SLNBs. The axillary positivity rate was 19%. The method of SLN identification was reported in 97% of cases, and in 388 (80%) more than one SLN was removed. All SLNs were serially sectioned according to protocol, though only 102 (21%) of pathology reports explicitly stated the cancer stage. Nearly all SLNBs were performed alongside the primary breast surgery. Among SLN-positive patients: 78 (87%) underwent axillary lymph node dissection, 10 patients refused, and chart data were missing in 2 others. No "ineligible" patients had SLNB. CONCLUSION: Measurement of newly developed QIs for SLNB is feasible for abstraction from inpatient charts at a single institution. These QIs can provide baseline measures for ongoing quality assessment of SLNB using hospital chart review.

Adoption of surgical innovations: factors influencing use of sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been unevenly adopted into practice in Canada. In this qualitative study, the authors explored individual, institutional, and policy factors that may have influenced SLNB adoption. This information will guide interventions to improve SLNB implementation. METHODS: Qualitative methodology was used to examine factors influencing SLNB adoption. Grounded theory guided data collection and analysis. Semistructured interviews were based on Roger's diffusion of innovation theory. Purposive and snowball sampling was used to identify participants. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with urban, rural, academic, and community health care providers and administrators to ensure all perspectives and motivations were explored. Two individuals independently analyzed data and achieved consensus on emerging themes and their relationship. RESULTS: A total of 43 interviews were completed with 21 surgeons, 5 pathologists, 7 nuclear medicine physicians, and 10 administrators. Generated themes included awareness of SLNB with the exception of some administrators, acknowledged advantage of SLNB, SLNB compatibility with beliefs regarding axillary staging, acknowledgment that SLNB was a complex innovation to adopt, extensive trialing of SLNB prior to adoption, observable benefits with SLNB, acknowledgment that hospital-level administrative support enabled adoption, desire for a provincial policy supporting SLNB to assist in hospital-level adoption, requirement of a local high-volume breast surgery champion who communicated extensively with team to facilitate local adoption, and need for credentialing of SLNB to ensure quality. CONCLUSIONS: SLNB is a complex innovation to adopt. Successful adoption was assisted by a high-volume breast cancer surgical champion, interprofessional communication, and administrative support.

Beyond the false negative rate: development of quality indicators for sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNLB) has been adopted as the standard method of axillary staging for women with clinically node-negative early-stage breast cancer. The false negative rate as a quality indicator is impractical given the need for a completion axillary dissection to calculate. The objective of this study was to develop practical quality indicators for SLNB using an expert consensus method and to determine if they were feasible to measure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a modified Delphi consensus process to develop quality indicators for SLNB. A multidisciplinary expert panel reviewed potential indicators extracted from the medical literature to select quality indicators that were relevant and measurable. Feasibility was determined by abstracting the quality indicator variables from a retrospective chart review. RESULTS: The expert panel prioritized 11 quality indicators as benchmarks for assessing the quality of surgical care in SNLB. Nine of the indicators were measurable at the chart or institutional level. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic evidence- and consensus-based approach was used to develop measurable quality indicators that could be used by practicing surgeons and administrators to evaluate performance of SLNB in breast cancer.

Predictors of multivisceral resection in patients with locally advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines recommend en bloc multivisceral resection (MVR) for all involved organs in patients with locally advanced adherent colorectal cancer (LAACRC) to reduce local recurrence and improve survival. We found that MVR was performed in one-third of eligible American patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results cancer registry but that study could not identify factors amenable to quality improvement. This study was conducted to examine rates, and predictors of MVR among Canadian patients with LAACRC. METHODS: Rates of MVR were examined by observational study. Eligible patients were aged 20-74 years who had surgery for nonmetastatic LAACRC from July 1997 to December 2000. Patient, tumor, surgeon, and hospital characteristics were extracted from medical records. Summary statistics were compared by type of surgery (MVR, partial MVR, standard resection). To identify factors associated with MVR we analyzed operative notes and transcripts from interviews with general surgeons using standard qualitative methods. RESULTS: Factors associated with MVR included fewer years in practice, preoperative treatment planning, involvement of surgical consultants, and access to diagnostic imaging and systems to enable preoperative multidisciplinary planning. Judgments regarding the nature of peritumoral adhesions, resectability, and personal technical skill may mediate decision-making. Many surgeons would prefer to refer patients than undertake complicated, lengthy cases. CONCLUSION: Further research is required to validate these findings in larger studies and among patients undergoing surgery for conditions other than LAACRC, and evaluate strategies to improve rates of MVR through enhanced individual awareness and system capacity.

Fostering knowledge exchange between researchers and decision-makers: exploring the effectiveness of a mixed-methods approach.

OBJECTIVES: Knowledge exchange is thought to enhance research utilization by decision-makers but there is little guidance on appropriate methods. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a research planning exercise utilizing technical (ranking, rating) and interpretive strategies (interdisciplinary workshop deliberation). METHODS: Participants were surveyed to establish research priorities and professional roles. Observation was used to examine actual contribution and outcomes. Semi-structured interviews with participants elicited perceived outcomes, commitment, contribution and learning. Survey data was reported with summary statistics. Transcripts were analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: Stakeholders were satisfied with the overall process, gaps in research were prioritized, and research questions were proposed, but anticipated intermediate or lateral outcomes were not achieved. Identifying differing perspectives and establishing relationships were unanticipated outcomes. Barriers included group dynamics, lack of clarity on objectives and processes, and minimal experience or interest in interpretive activities. CONCLUSIONS: A conceptual framework for evaluating factors influencing knowledge exchange outcomes had not been previously investigated. Strategies for overcoming identified barriers include better facilitation, involving a critical volume of non-clinicians, in-person sharing of background information, and incentives for decision-makers. Further research is required to examine the effectiveness of different forms of knowledge exchange, and the degree to which they are currently being practiced.