OncoSurge: a strategy for improving resectability with curative intent in metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Most patients with colorectal liver metastases present to general surgeons and oncologists without a specialist interest in their management. Since treatment strategy is frequently dependent on the response to earlier treatments, our aim was to create a therapeutic decision model identifying appropriate procedure sequences. METHODS: We used the RAND Corporation/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method (RAM) assessing strategies of resection, local ablation and chemotherapy. After a comprehensive literature review, an expert panel rated appropriateness of each treatment option for a total of 1,872 ratings decisions in 252 cases. A decision model was constructed, consensus measured and results validated using 48 virtual cases, and 34 real cases with known outcomes. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved with overall agreement rates of 93.4 to 99.1%. Absolute resection contraindications included unresectable extrahepatic disease, more than 70% liver involvement, liver failure, and being surgically unfit. Factors not influencing treatment strategy were age, primary tumor stage, timing of metastases detection, past blood transfusion, liver resection type, pre-resection carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and previous hepatectomy. Immediate resection was appropriate with adequate radiologically-defined resection margins and no portal adenopathy; other factors included presence of < or = 4 or > 4 metastases and unilobar or bilobar involvement. Resection was appropriate postchemotherapy, independent of tumor response in the case of < or = 4 metastases and unilobar liver involvement. Resection was appropriate only for > 4 metastases or bilobar liver involvement, after tumor shrinkage with chemotherapy. When possible, resection was preferred to local ablation. CONCLUSION: The results were incorporated into a decision matrix, creating a computer program (OncoSurge). This model identifies individual patient resectability, recommending optimal treatment strategies. It may also be used for medical education.

An electronic tool for venous thromboembolism prevention in medical and surgical patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a complex disorder influenced by numerous risk factors, and occurs frequently in at-risk hospitalized patients. Because appropriate prevention with thromboprophylaxis is underused, we wanted to create an electronic tool to provide a simple risk assessment and suggest appropriate prophylaxis. DESIGN AND METHODS: To develop the risk matrix, iterative rating of odds ratios was performed for 60 predisposing VTE risk factors, using analytical methods that account for multiple risk factors in a single patient and their non-independence. For exposing risk factors, a single score was assigned to each set of factors, both medical (25 items) and surgical conditions (144 items). A CART regression model was used to integrate the risk scales into a 4-level measure of overall risk. The validity of the level of risk and the appropriateness of 11 different prophylactic approaches was assessed using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method and validated by expert opinion ratings (n=1998) on sample case scenarios (n=108). RESULTS: Correlation between the level of risk calculated by the risk matrix and that offered by expert opinion for individual surgical and medical clinical cases was high (65% and 70%, respectively). The matrix over-estimated the level of risk, compared with that offered by expert opinion, in 28% and 20% of surgical and medical cases, respectively, but the appropriate prophylaxis suggested was no different. Between-expert agreement on the appropriateness of the prophylaxis recommendations was high (90-94% of indications). INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: This computer-based electronic tool for individualized assessment of venous thromboembolic risk successfully identified both the perceived risk of thrombosis and the appropriate prophylactic approach for medical and surgical patients.

What is eHealth (4): a scoping exercise to map the field.

BACKGROUND: Lack of consensus on the meaning of eHealth has led to uncertainty among academics, policymakers, providers and consumers. This project was commissioned in light of the rising profile of eHealth on the international policy agenda and the emerging UK National Programme for Information Technology (now called Connecting for Health) and related developments in the UK National Health Service. OBJECTIVES: To map the emergence and scope of eHealth as a topic and to identify its place within the wider health informatics field, as part of a larger review of research and expert analysis pertaining to current evidence, best practice and future trends. METHODS: Multiple databases of scientific abstracts were explored in a nonsystematic fashion to assess the presence of eHealth or conceptually related terms within their taxonomies, to identify journals in which articles explicitly referring to eHealth are contained and the topics covered, and to identify published definitions of the concept. The databases were Medline (PubMed), the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Science Citation Index (SCI), the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), the Cochrane Database (including Dare, Central, NHS Economic Evaluation Database [NHS EED], Health Technology Assessment [HTA] database, NHS EED bibliographic) and ISTP (now known as ISI proceedings). We used the search query, "Ehealth OR e-health OR e*health". The timeframe searched was 1997-2003, although some analyses contain data emerging subsequent to this period. This was supplemented by iterative searches of Web-based sources, such as commercial and policy reports, research commissioning programmes and electronic news pages. Definitions extracted from both searches were thematically analyzed and compared in order to assess conceptual heterogeneity. RESULTS: The term eHealth only came into use in the year 2000, but has since become widely prevalent. The scope of the topic was not immediately discernable from that of the wider health informatics field, for which over 320000 publications are listed in Medline alone, and it is not explicitly represented within the existing Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) taxonomy. Applying eHealth as narrative search term to multiple databases yielded 387 relevant articles, distributed across 154 different journals, most commonly related to information technology and telemedicine, but extending to such areas as law. Most eHealth articles are represented on Medline. Definitions of eHealth vary with respect to the functions, stakeholders, contexts and theoretical issues targeted. Most encompass a broad range of medical informatics applications either specified (eg, decision support, consumer health information) or presented in more general terms (eg, to manage, arrange or deliver health care). However the majority emphasize the communicative functions of eHealth and specify the use of networked digital technologies, primarily the Internet, thus differentiating eHealth from the field of medical informatics. While some definitions explicitly target health professionals or patients, most encompass applications for all stakeholder groups. The nature of the scientific and broader literature pertaining to eHealth closely reflects these conceptualizations. CONCLUSIONS: We surmise that the field -- as it stands today -- may be characterized by the global definitions suggested by Eysenbach and Eng.

Is the involvement of opinion leaders in the implementation of research findings a feasible strategy?

BACKGROUND: There is only limited empirical evidence about the effectiveness of opinion leaders as health care change agents. AIM: To test the feasibility of identifying, and the characteristics of, opinion leaders using a sociometric instrument and a self-designating instrument in different professional groups within the UK National Health Service. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers in two regions of Scotland. All physicians and surgeons (junior hospital doctors and consultants) and medical and surgical nursing staff in two district general hospitals and one teaching hospital in Scotland, as well as all Scottish obstetric and gynaecology, and oncology consultants. RESULTS: Using the sociometric instrument, the extent of social networks and potential coverage of the study population in primary and secondary care was highly idiosyncratic. In contrast, relatively complex networks with good coverage rates were observed in both national specialty groups. Identified opinion leaders were more likely to have the expected characteristics of opinion leaders identified from diffusion and social influence theories. Moreover, opinion leaders appeared to be condition-specific. The self-designating instrument identified more opinion leaders, but it was not possible to estimate the extent and structure of social networks or likely coverage by opinion leaders. There was poor agreement in the responses to the sociometric and self-designating instruments. CONCLUSION: The feasibility of identifying opinion leaders using an off-the-shelf sociometric instrument is variable across different professional groups and settings within the NHS. Whilst it is possible to identify opinion leaders using a self-designating instrument, the effectiveness of such opinion leaders has not been rigorously tested in health care settings. Opinion leaders appear to be monomorphic (different leaders for different issues). Recruitment of opinion leaders is unlikely to be an effective general strategy across all settings and professional groups; the more specialised the group, the more opinion leaders may be a useful strategy.

Reliability of clinical guideline development using mail-only versus in-person expert panels.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines quickly become outdated. One reason they might not be updated as often as needed is the expense of collecting expert judgment regarding the evidence. The RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method is one commonly used method for collecting expert opinion. We tested whether a less expensive, mail-only process could substitute for the standard in-person process normally used. METHODS: We performed a 4-way replication of the appropriateness panel process for coronary revascularization and hysterectomy, conducting 3 panels using the conventional in-person method and 1 panel entirely by mail. All indications were classified as inappropriate or not (to evaluate overuse), and coronary revascularization indications were classified as necessary or not (to evaluate underuse). Kappa statistics were calculated for the comparison in ratings from the 2 methods. RESULTS: Agreement beyond chance between the 2 panel methods ranged from moderate to substantial. The kappa statistic to detect overuse was 0.57 for coronary revascularization and 0.70 for hysterectomy. The kappa statistic to detect coronary revascularization underuse was 0.76. There were no cases in which coronary revascularization was considered inappropriate by 1 method, but necessary or appropriate by the other. Three of 636 (0.5%) hysterectomy cases were categorized as inappropriate by 1 method but appropriate by the other. CONCLUSIONS: The reproducibility of the overuse and underuse assessments from the mail-only compared with the conventional in-person conduct of expert panels in this application was similar to the underlying reproducibility of the process. This suggests a potential role for updating guidelines using an expert judgment process conducted entirely through the mail.

Appropriateness of coronary revascularization for patients with chronic stable angina or following an acute myocardial infarction: multinational versus Dutch criteria.

OBJECTIVE: We convened a multinational panel to develop appropriateness criteria for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). To assess the applicability of these criteria, we applied them to patients referred for coronary revascularization. Finally, to understand how multinational criteria may differ from criteria developed by a panel of physicians from one country, we compared the appropriateness ratings using the multinational panel's criteria and those made using similar criteria previously developed by a panel of Dutch physicians. METHODS: We conducted a prospective survey and review of the medical records of 2363 consecutive patients presenting with chronic stable angina or following a myocardial infarction who were referred for PTCA (n=1137) or CABG (n= 1226) at ten Dutch hospitals performing coronary revascularization. Appropriateness was measured using two sets of criteria developed by: (1) a Dutch panel of cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons in 1991; and (2) a similarly composed European panel in 1998. RESULTS: More PTCA referrals were rated inappropriate by Dutch criteria compared with multinational criteria among both patients with chronic stable angina (34.8 versus 6.1%; P< 0.001) and those with a recent myocardial infarction (28.1 versus 0.9%; P< 0.001). Among those patients referred for bypass surgery, the Dutch criteria judged a greater proportion of cases inappropriate than multinational criteria did for patients with chronic stable angina (3.7 versus 1.5%, P< 0.001). The proportion of cases rated inappropriate for bypass surgery among patients following a myocardial infarction was similar between the two panels (3.9 versus 2.4%, respectively; P=0.40). After reclassifying the data for two of the clinical factors used in the appropriateness criteria (lesion morphology and intensity of medical therapy) based on evidence that appeared in the literature after the Dutch panel met, we found no significant differences between the Dutch and multinational panels' appropriateness ratings. CONCLUSIONS: While fewer cases were judged inappropriate using the multinational criteria compared with the Dutch criteria, the differences in ratings were related primarily to the clinical factors used by each panel. These findings support the review of appropriateness criteria, and other forms of clinical guidelines, to ensure that they are current with the clinical evidence before using them to assess clinical care. Developing such criteria using a multinational panel, in contrast to multiple single country panels, would be a more efficient use of resources.