The Effectiveness of Information Technology-Supported Shared Care for Patients With Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic disease, many health care professionals are involved during treatment and follow-up. This leads to fragmentation that in turn may lead to suboptimal care. Shared care is a means to improve the integration of care delivered by various providers, specifically primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialty care professionals, for patients with chronic disease. The use of information technology (IT) in this field seems promising. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to systematically review the literature regarding the effectiveness of IT-supported shared care interventions in chronic disease in terms of provider or professional, process, health or clinical and financial outcomes. Additionally, our aim was to provide an inventory of the IT applications' characteristics that support such interventions. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE were searched from 2006 to 2015 to identify relevant studies using search terms related to shared care, chronic disease, and IT. Eligible studies were in the English language, and the randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials, or single group pre-post studies used reported on the effects of IT-supported shared care in patients with chronic disease and cancer. The interventions had to involve providers from both primary and specialty health care. Intervention and IT characteristics and effectiveness-in terms of provider or professional (proximal), process (intermediate), health or clinical and financial (distal) outcomes-were extracted. Risk of bias of (cluster) RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane tool. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 4167 results. Thirteen publications were used, including 11 (cluster) RCTs, a controlled trial, and a pre-post feasibility study. Four main categories of IT applications were identified: (1) electronic decision support tools, (2) electronic platform with a call-center, (3) electronic health records, and (4) electronic communication applications. Positive effects were found for decision support-based interventions on financial and health outcomes, such as physical activity. Electronic health record use improved PCP visits and reduced rehospitalization. Electronic platform use resulted in fewer readmissions and better clinical outcomes-for example, in terms of body mass index (BMI) and dyspnea. The use of electronic communication applications using text-based information transfer between professionals had a positive effect on the number of PCPs contacting hospitals, PCPs' satisfaction, and confidence. CONCLUSIONS: IT-supported shared care can improve proximal outcomes, such as confidence and satisfaction of PCPs, especially in using electronic communication applications. Positive effects on intermediate and distal outcomes were also reported but were mixed. Surprisingly, few studies were found that substantiated these anticipated benefits. Studies showed a large heterogeneity in the included populations, outcome measures, and IT applications used. Therefore, a firm conclusion cannot be drawn. As IT applications are developed and implemented rapidly, evidence is needed to test the specific added value of IT in shared care interventions. This is expected to require innovative research methods.

Effect of Low-Intensity Physical Activity and Moderate- to High-Intensity Physical Exercise During Adjuvant Chemotherapy on Physical Fitness, Fatigue, and Chemotherapy Completion Rates: Results of the PACES Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the effectiveness of a low-intensity, home-based physical activity program (Onco-Move) and a moderate- to high-intensity, combined supervised resistance and aerobic exercise program (OnTrack) versus usual care (UC) in maintaining or enhancing physical fitness, minimizing fatigue, enhancing health-related quality of life, and optimizing chemotherapy completion rates in patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned patients who were scheduled to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy (N = 230) to Onco-Move, OnTrack, or UC. Performance-based and self-reported outcomes were assessed before random assignment, at the end of chemotherapy, and at the 6-month follow-up. We used generalized estimating equations to compare the groups over time. RESULTS: Onco-Move and OnTrack resulted in less decline in cardiorespiratory fitness (P < .001), better physical functioning (P ≤ .001), less nausea and vomiting (P = .029 and .031, respectively) and less pain (P = .003 and .011, respectively) compared with UC. OnTrack also resulted in better outcomes for muscle strength (P = .002) and physical fatigue (P < .001). At the 6-month follow-up, most outcomes returned to baseline levels for all three groups. A smaller percentage of participants in OnTrack required chemotherapy dose adjustments than those in the UC or Onco-Move groups (P = .002). Both intervention groups returned earlier (P = .012), as well as for more hours per week (P = .014), to work than the control group. CONCLUSION: A supervised, moderate- to high-intensity, combined resistance and aerobic exercise program is most effective for patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. A home-based, low-intensity physical activity program represents a viable alternative for women who are unable or unwilling to follow the higher intensity program.

Assessing excellence in translational cancer research: a consensus based framework.

BACKGROUND: It takes several years on average to translate basic research findings into clinical research and eventually deliver patient benefits. An expert-based excellence assessment can help improve this process by: identifying high performing Comprehensive Cancer Centres; best practices in translational cancer research; improving the quality and efficiency of the translational cancer research process. This can help build networks of excellent Centres by aiding focused partnerships. In this paper we report on a consensus building exercise that was undertaken to construct an excellence assessment framework for translational cancer research in Europe. METHODS: We used mixed methods to reach consensus: a systematic review of existing translational research models critically appraised for suitability in performance assessment of Cancer Centres; a survey among European stakeholders (researchers, clinicians, patient representatives and managers) to score a list of potential excellence criteria, a focus group with selected representatives of survey participants to review and rescore the excellence criteria; an expert group meeting to refine the list; an open validation round with stakeholders and a critical review of the emerging framework by an independent body: a committee formed by the European Academy of Cancer Sciences. RESULTS: The resulting excellence assessment framework has 18 criteria categorized in 6 themes. Each criterion has a number of questions/sub-criteria. Stakeholders favoured using qualitative excellence criteria to evaluate the translational research "process" rather than quantitative criteria or judging only the outputs. Examples of criteria include checking if the Centre has mechanisms that can be rated as excellent for: involvement of basic researchers and clinicians in translational research (quality of supervision and incentives provided to clinicians to do a PhD in translational research) and well designed clinical trials based on ground-breaking concepts (innovative patient stratification, substantial fraction of phase I/II trials, investigator-initiated trials). Critically, the framework supports reduced bureaucracy by building on existing European evaluation systems. CONCLUSIONS: The excellence framework is the product of an intense stakeholder consensus building exercise. It will be piloted during an expert peer review/site visit of at least three European Comprehensive Cancer Centres. The findings regarding content, governance and implementation can have relevance for other clinical and research fields.

International benchmarking of specialty hospitals. A series of case studies on comprehensive cancer centres.

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking is one of the methods used in business that is applied to hospitals to improve the management of their operations. International comparison between hospitals can explain performance differences. As there is a trend towards specialization of hospitals, this study examines the benchmarking process and the success factors of benchmarking in international specialized cancer centres. METHODS: Three independent international benchmarking studies on operations management in cancer centres were conducted. The first study included three comprehensive cancer centres (CCC), three chemotherapy day units (CDU) were involved in the second study and four radiotherapy departments were included in the final study. Per multiple case study a research protocol was used to structure the benchmarking process. After reviewing the multiple case studies, the resulting description was used to study the research objectives. RESULTS: We adapted and evaluated existing benchmarking processes through formalizing stakeholder involvement and verifying the comparability of the partners. We also devised a framework to structure the indicators to produce a coherent indicator set and better improvement suggestions. Evaluating the feasibility of benchmarking as a tool to improve hospital processes led to mixed results. Case study 1 resulted in general recommendations for the organizations involved. In case study 2, the combination of benchmarking and lean management led in one CDU to a 24% increase in bed utilization and a 12% increase in productivity. Three radiotherapy departments of case study 3, were considering implementing the recommendations.Additionally, success factors, such as a well-defined and small project scope, partner selection based on clear criteria, stakeholder involvement, simple and well-structured indicators, analysis of both the process and its results and, adapt the identified better working methods to the own setting, were found. CONCLUSIONS: The improved benchmarking process and the success factors can produce relevant input to improve the operations management of specialty hospitals.

A web-based communication system for integrated care in cerebral palsy: design features, technical feasibility and usability.

We developed a secure, web-based system for parent-professional and inter-professional communication. The aim was to improve communication in the care of children with cerebral palsy. We conducted a six-month trial of the system in three Dutch health-care regions. The participants were the parents of 30 cerebral palsy patients and 120 professional staff involved in their care. Information about system usage was extracted from the system's database. The experience of the parents and professionals was evaluated by a questionnaire after six months. The system proved to be technically robust and reliable. A total of 21 parents (70%) and 66 professionals (55%) used the system. The parents submitted 111 questions and 59 responses, with a mean of 5 questions (range 1-17) and 3 responses (range 1-9) per parent. The professionals submitted 79 questions and 237 responses, with a mean of 2 questions (range 1-8) and 4 responses (range 1-23) per professional. Most parents (95%) and some professionals (30%) reported value in using the system, which ranged from efficiency and accessibility to flexibility and transparency. The web-based communication system was technically feasible and produced improved parent-professional and inter-professional communication. It may be especially valuable if frequent interventions or consultations about a child's care are required, involving complex care networks of different professionals and organisations.