Development of a workflow process mapping protocol to inform the implementation of regional patient navigation programs in breast oncology.

BACKGROUND: Implementing city-wide patient navigation processes that support patients across the continuum of cancer care is impeded by a lack of standardized tools to integrate workflows and reduce gaps in care. The authors present an actionable workflow process mapping protocol for navigation process planning and improvement based on methods developed for the Translating Research Into Practice study. METHODS: Key stakeholders at each study site were identified through existing community partnerships, and data on each site's navigation processes were collected using mixed methods through a series of team meetings. The authors used Health Quality Ontario's Quality Improvement Guide, service design principles, and key stakeholder input to map the collected data onto a template structured according to the case-management model. RESULTS: Data collection and process mapping exercises resulted in a 10-step protocol that includes: 1) workflow mapping procedures to guide data collection on the series of activities performed by health care personnel that comprise a patient's navigation experience, 2) a site survey to assess program characteristics, 3) a semistructured interview guide to assess care coordination workflows, 4) a site-level swim lane workflow process mapping template, and 5) a regional high-level process mapping template to aggregate data from multiple site-level process maps. CONCLUSIONS: This iterative, participatory approach to data collection and process mapping can be used by improvement teams to streamline care coordination, ultimately improving the design and delivery of an evidence-based navigation model that spans multiple treatment modalities and multiple health systems in a metropolitan area. This protocol is presented as an actionable toolkit so the work may be replicated to support other quality-improvement initiatives and efforts to design truly patient-centered breast cancer treatment experiences. LAY SUMMARY: Evidence-based patient navigation in breast cancer care requires the integration of services through each phase of cancer treatment. The Translating Research Into Practice study aims to implement patient navigation for patients with breast cancer who are at risk for delays and are seeking care across 6 health systems in Boston, Massachusetts. The authors designed a 10-step protocol outlining procedures and tools that support a systematic assessment for health systems that want to implement breast cancer patient navigation services for patients who are at risk for treatment delays.

Patient navigator team perceptions on the implementation of a citywide breast cancer patient navigation protocol: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In 2018 Translating Research Into Practice (TRIP), an evidence-based patient navigation intervention aimed at addressing breast cancer care disparities, was implemented across six Boston hospitals. This study assesses patient navigator team member perspectives regarding implementation barriers and facilitators one year post-study implementation. METHODS: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews at the six sites participating in the pragmatic TRIP trial from December 2019 to March 2021. Navigation team members involved with breast cancer care navigation processes at each site were interviewed at least 12 months after intervention implementation. Interview questions were designed to address domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), focusing on barriers and facilitators to implementing the intervention that included 1) rigorous 11-step guidelines for navigation, 2) a shared patient registry and 3) a social risk screening and referral program. Analysis was structured using deductive codes representing domains and constructs within CFIR. RESULTS: Seventeen interviews were conducted with patient navigators, their supervisors, and designated clinical champions. Participants identified the following benefits provided by the TRIP intervention: 1) increased networking and connections for navigators across clinical sites (Cosmopolitanism), 2) formalization of the patient navigation process (Goals and Purpose, Access to Knowledge and Information, and Relative Advantage), and 3) flexibility within the TRIP intervention that allowed for diversity in implementation and use of TRIP components across sites (Adaptability). Barriers included those related to documentation requirements (Complexity) and the structured patient follow up guidelines that did not always align with the timeline of existing site navigation processes (Relative Priority). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis provides data using real-world experience from an intervention trial in progress, identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing an evidence-based patient navigation intervention for breast cancer care. We identified core processes that facilitated the navigators' patient-focused tasks and role on the clinical team. Barriers encountered reflect limitations of navigator funding models and high caseload. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT03514433 , 5/2/2018.

Assessment of patient navigation programs for breast cancer patients across the city of Boston.

PURPOSE: Healthcare systems contribute to disparities in breast cancer outcomes. Patient navigation is a widely cited system-based approach to improve outcomes among populations at risk for delays in care. Patient navigation programs exist in all major Boston hospitals, yet disparities in outcomes persist. The objective of this study was to conduct a baseline assessment of navigation processes at six Boston hospitals that provide breast cancer care in preparation for an implementation trial of standardized navigation across the city. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study in six hospitals that provide treatment to breast cancer patients in Boston. We administered a web-based survey to clinical champions (n = 7) across six sites to collect information about the structure of navigation programs. We then conducted in-person workflow assessments at each site using a semi-structured interview guide to understand site-specific implementation processes for patient navigation programs. The target population included administrators, supervisors, and patient navigators who provided breast cancer treatment-focused care. RESULTS: All sites offered patient navigation services to their patients undergoing treatment for breast cancer. We identified wide heterogeneity in terms of how programs were funded/resourced, which patients were targeted for navigation, the type of services provided, and the continuity of those services relative to the patient's cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The operationalization of patient navigation varies widely across hospitals especially in relation to three core principles in patient navigation: providing patient support across the care continuum, targeting services to those patients most likely to experience delays in care, and systematically screening for and addressing patients' health-related social needs. Gaps in navigation across the care continuum present opportunities for intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT03514433, 5/2/2018.

Informal preparation and years of experience: Key correlates of dyslexia knowledge among Massachusetts early elementary teachers.

BACKGROUND: Dyslexia is a neurobiological condition affecting phonological processing and characterized by reading and phonological awareness difficulties. We assessed correlations between dyslexia knowledge and five independent variables among early elementary teachers in Massachusetts. METHODS: We designed a survey based on two published assessment tools and surveyed 92 early elementary teachers. Using univariate and multivariate linear regression models, we assessed the relationships among knowledge (dependent variable) and confidence, feelings of preparedness, years of teaching experience, informal education and professional development opportunities (independent variables). RESULTS: The mean knowledge score was 68 ± 14%; teachers performed best on questions about perceptions of dyslexia, classroom management/teaching strategies and some dyslexia characteristics. Informal education and years of teaching experience were consistently positively associated with knowledge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Formal training and professional development opportunities may need to focus more specifically on learning disabilities and dyslexia. Teachers should also have input on professional development needs. Our findings suggest a need for additional studies on strategies to improve educator knowledge of dyslexia and assess outcomes.