How a Canadian federal organization integrated synoptic reporting and quality improvement tools to drive a national learning health system in cancer surgery.

Accurate and complete surgical and pathology reports are the cornerstone of treatment decisions and cancer care excellence. Synoptic reporting is a process for reporting specific data elements in a specific format in surgical and pathology reports. Since 2007, The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer has led the implementation of synoptic reporting mechanisms across multiple cancer disease sites and jurisdictions across Canada. While the implementation of synoptic reporting has been successful, its use to drive improvements in the quality of cancer care delivery has been lacking. Here we describe the Partnership's 4-year, national multi-jurisdictional quality improvement initiative to catalyse the use synoptic data to drive cancer system improvements. Resources provided to the jurisdictions included operational funding, training in quality improvement methodology, national forums, expert coaches, and ad hoc monitoring and support. The program emphasized foundational concepts including data literacy, audit and feedback reports, communities of practice, and positive deviance methodology.

Evidence of Decreased Long-term Risk of Cervical Precancer after Negative Primary HPV Screens Compared with Negative Cytology Screens in a Longitudinal Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The growing use of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer screening requires determining appropriate screening intervals to avoid overtreatment of transient disease. This study examined the long-term risk of cervical precancer after HPV screening to inform screening interval recommendations. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study (British Columbia, Canada, 2008 to 2022) recruited women and individuals with a cervix who received 1 to 2 negative HPV screens (HPV1 cohort, N = 5,546; HPV2 cohort, N = 6,624) during a randomized trial and women and individuals with a cervix with 1 to 2 normal cytology results (BCS1 cohort, N = 782,297; BCS2 cohort, N = 673,778) extracted from the provincial screening registry. All participants were followed through the registry for 14 years. Long-term risk of cervical precancer or worse [cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+)] was compared between HPV and cytology cohorts. RESULTS: Cumulative risks of CIN2+ were 3.2/1,000 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6-4.7] in HPV1 and 2.7/1,000 (95% CI, 1.2-4.2) in HPV2 after 8 years. This was comparable with the risk in the cytology cohorts after 3 years [BCS1: 3.3/1,000 (95% CI, 3.1-3.4); BCS2: 2.5/1,000 (95% CI, 2.4-2.6)]. The cumulative risk of CIN2+ after 10 years was low in the HPV cohorts [HPV1: 4.7/1,000 (95% CI, 2.6-6.7); HPV2: 3.9 (95% CI, 1.1-6.6)]. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of CIN2+ 8 years after a negative screen in the HPV cohorts was comparable with risk after 3 years in the cytology cohorts (the benchmark for acceptable risk). IMPACT: These findings suggest that primary HPV screening intervals could be extended beyond the current 5-year recommendation, potentially reducing barriers to screening.

Implementation and evaluation of a national quality improvement initiative in cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, a Canadian federally sponsored organisation, initiated a national multijurisdictional quality improvement (QI) initiative to maximise the use of synoptic data to drive cancer system improvements, known as the Evidence for Surgical Synoptic Quality Improvement Programme. The goal of our study was to evaluate the outcomes, determinants and learning of this nationally led initiative across six jurisdictions in Canada, integrating a mix of cancer surgery disease sites and clinicians. METHODS: A mixed-methods evaluation (surveys, semistructured interviews and focus groups) of this initiative was focused on the ability of each jurisdiction to use synoptic reporting data to successfully implement and sustain QI projects to beyond the completion of the initiative and the lessons learnt in the process. Resources provided to the jurisdictions included operational funding, training in QI methodology, national forums, expert coaches, and ad hoc monitoring and support. The programme emphasised foundational concepts of the QI process including data literacy, audit and feedback reports, communities of practice (CoP) and positive deviance methodology. RESULTS: 101 CoP meetings were held and 337 clinicians received feedback reports. There were 23 projects, and 22 of 23 (95%) showed improvements with 15 of 23 (65%) achieving the proposed targets. Enablers of effective data utilisation/feedback reports for QI included the need for clinicians to trust the data, have comparative data for feedback, and the engagement of both data scientists and clinicians in designing feedback reports. Enablers of sustainability of QI within each jurisdiction included QI training for clinicians, the ability to continue CoP meetings, executive and broad stakeholder engagement, and the ability to use pre-existing organisational infrastructures and processes. Barriers to continue QI work included lack of funding for core team members, lack of automated data collection processes and lack of clinician incentives (financial and other). CONCLUSION: Success and sustainability in data-driven QI in cancer surgery require skills in QI methodology, data literacy and feedback, dedicated supportive personnel and an environment that promotes the process of collective learning and shared accountability. Building these capabilities in jurisdictional teams, tailoring interventions to facility contexts and strong leadership engagement will create the capacity for continued success in QI for cancer surgery.