Defining Standards for Hepatopancreatobiliary Cancer Surgery in Ontario, Canada: A Population-Based Cohort Study of Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, Cancer Care Ontario created Surgical Oncology Standards for the delivery of hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery including hepatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Our objective was to identify the impact of standardization on outcomes after HPB surgery in Ontario, Canada. STUDY DESIGN: This study was a population-level analysis of patients undergoing hepatectomy or PD (2003 to 2019). Logistic regression models were used to compare 30- and 90-day mortality and length of stay (LOS) before (2003 to 2006), during (2007 to 2011), and after (2012 to 2019) standardization. Interrupted time series models were used to co-analyze secular trends. RESULTS: A total of 7,904 hepatectomies and 5,238 PDs were performed. More than 80% of all cases were performed at a designated center (DC) before standardization. This increased to >98% in the poststandardization era. Median volumes at DCs increased from 55 to 67 hepatectomies/year and from 22 to 50 PDs/year over time. In addition, 30-day mortality after hepatectomy was 2.6% before standardization and 2.3% after standardization (p = 0.9); 30-day mortality after PD was 3.6% before standardization and 2.4% after standardization (p = 0.1). Multivariable analyses revealed a significant difference in 90-day mortality following PD poststandardization (4.3% vs 6.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.7; p = 0.03). Median LOS was shorter for hepatectomy (6 days vs 8 days) and PD (9 days vs 14 days; p < 0.0001) after standardization. Immediate and late effects on mortality and LOS were likely attributable to secular trends, which predated standardization. CONCLUSIONS: Standardization was associated with a higher volume of hepatectomy and PDs with further concentration of care at DCs. Pre-existing quality initiatives may have attenuated the effect of standardization on quality outcomes. Our data highlight the merits of a multifaceted provincial system for enabling consistent access to high quality HPB care throughout a region of 15 million people over a 16-year period.

Refining the thoracic surgical oncology regionalization standards for esophageal surgery in Ontario, Canada: Moving from good to better.

BACKGROUND: The consolidation of surgical practices has been suggested to improve patient outcomes for complex surgeries. In 2005, Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario released the Thoracic Surgical Oncology Standards to facilitate the regionalization process at thoracic centers in Ontario, Canada. This work describes the quality-improvement process involved in updating the minimum surgical volume and supporting requirement recommendations for thoracic centers to further optimize patient care for esophageal cancer. METHODS: We conducted a literature review to identify and synthesize evidence informing the volume-outcome relationship related to esophagectomy. The results of this review and esophageal cancer surgery common indicators (reoperation rate, unplanned visit rate, 30-day and 90-day mortality) from Ontario's Surgical Quality Indicator Report were presented and reviewed by a Thoracic Esophageal Standards Expert Panel and Surgical Oncology Program Leads at Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario. Hospital outliers were identified, and a subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the most appropriate minimum surgical volume threshold based on 30- and 90-day mortality rates data from the last 3 fiscal years. RESULTS: Based on the finding that a significant decrease in mortality occurred at 12 to 15 esophagectomies per year, the Thoracic Esophageal Standards Expert Panel reached a consensus that thoracic centers should perform a minimum of 15 esophagectomies per year. The panel also recommended that any center performing esophagectomies have at least 3 thoracic surgeons to ensure continuity in clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: We have described the process involved in updating the provincial minimum volume threshold and the appropriate support services for esophageal cancer surgery in Ontario.

Reprise du retard en chirurgie causé par la COVID-19 en Ontario : étude de modélisation de séries chronologiques.

CONTEXTE: Pour limiter la propagation de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), de nombreux pays ont décidé de réduire le nombre d'interventions chirurgicales non urgentes, ce qui a créé des retards en chirurgie partout dans le monde. Notre objectif était d'évaluer l'ampleur du retard pour ce type d'interventions en Ontario, au Canada, ainsi que le temps et les ressources nécessaires pour y remédier. MÉTHODES: Nous avons consulté 6 bases de données administratives décrivant la population ontarienne et canadienne pour dégager la distribution du volume chirurgical et de la cadence des salles d'opération pour chaque type d'interventions et chaque région, et connaître la durée d'occupation d'un lit d'hôpital et d'un lit de soins intensifs. Les données utilisées concernent l'ensemble ou une partie de la période du 1er janvier 2017 au 13 juin 2020. Nous avons estimé l'ampleur du retard accumulé et prédit le temps nécessaire pour le reprendre dans un scénario avec capacité d'appoint de + 10 % (ajout d'un jour à 50 % de la capacité par semaine) à l'aide de modèles de séries chronologiques, de modèles de files d'attente et d'une analyse de sensibilité probabiliste. RÉSULTATS: Entre le 15 mars et le 13 juin 2020, le retard en chirurgie à l'échelle de l'Ontario s'est accru de 148 364 opérations (intervalle de prévision à 95 % 124 508­174 589) au total, et en moyenne de 11 413 opérations par semaine. Pour reprendre le retard accumulé, il faudra environ 84 semaines (intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % 46­145) et une cadence hebdomadaire de 717 patients (IC à 95 % 326­1367), qui elle demande 719 heures passées au bloc opératoire (IC à 95 % 431­1038), 265 lits d'hôpital (IC à 95 % 87­678) et 9 lits de soins intensifs (IC à 95 % 4­20) par semaine. INTERPRÉTATION: L'ampleur du retard en chirurgie dû à la COVID-19 laisse entrevoir de graves conséquences pour la phase de reprise en Ontario. Le cadre qui nous a servi à modéliser la reprise du retard peut être adapté ailleurs, avec des données locales, pour faciliter la planification.

Clearing the surgical backlog caused by COVID-19 in Ontario: a time series modelling study.

BACKGROUND: To mitigate the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), jurisdictions worldwide ramped down nonemergent surgeries, creating a global surgical backlog. We sought to estimate the size of the nonemergent surgical backlog during COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada, and the time and resources required to clear the backlog. METHODS: We used 6 Ontario or Canadian population administrative sources to obtain data covering part or all of the period between Jan. 1, 2017, and June 13, 2020, on historical volumes and operating room throughput distributions by surgery type and region, and lengths of stay in ward and intensive care unit (ICU) beds. We used time series forecasting, queuing models and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to estimate the size of the backlog and clearance time for a +10% (+1 day per week at 50% capacity) surge scenario. RESULTS: Between Mar. 15 and June 13, 2020, the estimated backlog in Ontario was 148 364 surgeries (95% prediction interval 124 508-174 589), an average weekly increase of 11 413 surgeries. Estimated backlog clearance time is 84 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI] 46-145), with an estimated weekly throughput of 717 patients (95% CI 326-1367) requiring 719 operating room hours (95% CI 431-1038), 265 ward beds (95% CI 87-678) and 9 ICU beds (95% CI 4-20) per week. INTERPRETATION: The magnitude of the surgical backlog from COVID-19 raises serious implications for the recovery phase in Ontario. Our framework for modelling surgical backlog recovery can be adapted to other jurisdictions, using local data to assist with planning.

An organizational guideline for gynecologic oncology services.

OBJECTIVES: Documented variations in practice compelled the need to establish a network that would facilitate the flow of patients through the care continuum of a provincial health care system in accordance with best practices. Therefore, a guideline was developed to provide recommendations for the optimal organization of gynecologic oncology services in this higher resource location to improve access to multidisciplinary care and appropriate treatment. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of Web sites of international guideline developers, relevant cancer agencies, and Medline and EMBASE from 1996 to 2011 using search terms related to gynecologic malignancies, combined with organization of services, patterns of care, and various facility and physician characteristics. The results of the review were combined with expert consensus and stakeholder consultation to develop a gynecologic oncology services organizational guideline. RESULTS: The evidence review yielded a lower quality evidence base; therefore, recommendations were determined through consensus, including guidance for physician and hospital specialization, and other domains including human and physical resources. Definitive surgical treatment of most invasive cancers by subspecialist gynecologic oncologists is recommended. In addition, it is recommended that these subspecialists provide care within designated gynecologic oncology centers. The recommendations also outline which services, such as radiation therapy, may be provided in other affiliated centers. Multidisciplinary team management is also endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are intended to allow a collaborative community of practice, supported by formal interorganizational processes, to evolve to facilitate adherence to guidelines and best practices at a system-wide level.

Physician level reporting of surgical and pathology performance indicators: a regional study to assess feasibility and impact on quality.

BACKGROUND: There is increased awareness that, to minimize variation in clinician practice and improve quality, performance reporting should be implemented at the provider level. This optimizes physician engagement and creates a sense of professional responsibility for quality and performance measurement at the individual and organizational levels. METHODS: Individual provider level reporting was implemented within a provincial health region involving 56 clinicians (general surgeons, surgical oncologists, urologists and pathologists). The 2 surgical pathology indicators chosen were colorectal cancer (CRC) lymph node retrieval rate and pT2 prostate cancer margin positivity rate. Surgical resections for all prostate and colorectal cancer performed between Jan. 1, 2011, and Mar. 30, 2012, were included. We used a pre- and postsurvey design to obtain physician perceptions and focus groups with program leadership to determine organizational impact. RESULTS: Survey results showed that respondents felt the data provided in the reports were valid (67%), consistent with expectations (70%), maintained confidentiality (80%) and were not used in a punitive manner (77%). During the study period the pT2 prostate margin positivity rate decreased from 57.1% to 27.5%. For the CRC lymph node retrieval rate indicator, high baseline performance was maintained. CONCLUSION: We developed a robust process for providing physicians with confidential, individualized surgical and pathology quality indicator reports. Our results reinforce the importance of individual physician feedback as a strategy for improving and sustaining quality in surgical and diagnostic oncology.

Quality indicators for non-small cell lung cancer operations with use of a modified Delphi consensus process.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this project was to develop a set of quality indicators to assess surgical decision making in the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A multidisciplinary Expert Panel of 16 physicians used a modified Delphi process to identify quality indicators that evaluated the processes of care in patients with NSCLC. A systematic review identified potential indicators, which were rated on actionability, validity, usefulness, discriminability, and feasibility in two rounds of questionnaires. The first questionnaire was completed by the Expert Panel and by the larger thoracic surgical community of practice; the second questionnaire was sent to only the Expert Panel. Expert Panel members attended an in-person meeting to review the results of the two questionnaires and to compile the final list of indicators by consensus. RESULTS: From the literature review, 41 potential indicators were identified. An additional 16 indicators were suggested by the Expert Panel: 13 indicators in the two rounds of questionnaires and three after the discussion at the in-person meeting. One further indicator was identified after the in-person meeting. In the end, 17 indicators were chosen from seven domains: preoperative assessment, staging, surgical procedures, pathology, adjuvant therapy, surgical outcomes, and miscellaneous CONCLUSIONS: By use of a modified Delphi process, 17 indicators to assess the quality of processes of surgical care for patients with NSCLC were developed.

Improving multidisciplinary cancer conferences: a population-based intervention.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) facilitate the discussion of appropriate diagnostic and treatment options for an individual cancer patient. In 2007, a study conducted in Ontario found that 52 % of hospitals were able to provide access to MCCs. In 2006, Cancer Care Ontario published minimum standards for MCCs. A framework for measurement was developed to monitor MCCs at the hospital, regional, and provincial level. The objective of this study was to review the results from initial efforts to improve quality and access through a population-based intervention. METHODS: Data collection was completed prospectively between October to December in 2009, 2010, and 2011. A criterion satisfaction score (CSS) was developed on the basis of indicators including MCC frequency, type of patient case review, the presence of a chair and coordinator, and the attendance of appropriate medical staff members. For each hospital and region, the overall number of MCCs, patients discussed, and CSSs was calculated. RESULTS: Data were available from 13 of 14 regions in 2009 and all 14 regions in 2010 and 2011. The number of MCCs increased from 660 in 2009 to 798 in 2011 (p = 0.06). The number of patients discussed at MCCs increased from 4,695 in 2009 to 5,702 in 2011 (p = 0.22). The CSS scores across the regions improved significantly across 2009-2011 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A population-based intervention has been associated with an improvement in access and quality of MCCs.

Early results after regionalization of thoracic surgical practice in a single-payer system.

BACKGROUND: Regionalization of the practice of thoracic surgery into designated centers was carried out in Ontario to manage volume, improve outcomes, and facilitate comprehensive care. This article describes the process used by Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) to regionalize thoracic surgery practice and reports early results. METHODS: A thoracic surgery standard was created by CCO, specifying criteria for level I (tertiary) and level II (secondary) thoracic surgery centers based on current volumes and projected population growth and referral patterns, and then implemented the standard using various incentives and disincentives. RESULTS: Before regionalization (2004), 46 hospitals performed thoracic surgical procedures compared with 13 level I and 2 level II centers in 2010. From 2007 to 2011, a mean $8.4 million was distributed annually to designated centers to fund a mean 625 additional thoracic operations annually. By 2009 to 2010, the number of esophagectomies performed at designated centers increased from 212 to 285 (89% being performed in designated centers). Correspondingly, the number of lung resections increased from 1,396 to 1,858 (94% being performed in designated centers). Median wait time for lung cancer resection did not change. Regionalization achieved a significant reduction in 30-day mortality after pneumonectomy (10.9%-5.6%; p = 0.03) but no change for esophagectomy (5.9%-5.8%; p = 0. 96) or lobectomy (2.2%-1.9%; p = 0. 37). CONCLUSIONS: Regionalization was challenging but feasible and was associated with reduced 30-day mortality after pneumonectomy. More data are required to evaluate other short- and long-term outcome measures to further validate benefits from regionalization.

Surgical margin status among men with organ-confined (pT2) prostate cancer: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: : Following prostate cancer surgery, positive surgical margin (PSM) status varies among institutions and there is evidence that high-volume surgeons and centres obtain better oncological results. However, larger studies recording PSM for radical prostatectomy (RP) are from large "centres of excellence" and not population-based. Cancer Care Ontario undertook an audit of pathology reports to determine the province-wide PSM rate for pathological stage T2 (pT2) disease prostate cancer and to assess the overall and regional-based PSM rates based on surgical volume to understand gaps in quality of care prior to undertaking quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: : Data were extracted as part of the Pathology Project Audit data output (2005, 2006). Pathology reports were submitted to Cancer Care Ontario by Ontario hospitals electronically via the Pathology Information Management System. An experienced cancer pathology coder extracted the PSM data from eligible RP cancer specimen pathology reports. Only reports that provided a pathological stage were included in the analysis. Biopsy and transurethral resection of the prostate reports were excluded. A convenience sample of 1346 reports from 2006 and 728 from 2005 were analyzed. Regression analysis was performed to assess volume-margin associations. RESULTS: : The median province-wide surgical PSM rate for pT2 disease was 33%, ranging 0-100% among 43 hospitals where RP volumes ranged 12-625. There was no significant correlation (p > 0.05) between volume and PSM by logistic regression with variable odds ratios (95% confidence interval [CI]) for PSM by quartile (1(st) = 1.66 [0.93-2.96]; 2(nd) = 0.97 [0.58-1.62]; 3(rd) = 1.44[0.91-2.29]) compared to the highest volume last quartile. Mean PSM rates between community and teaching hospitals were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: : The province-wide PSM rate for pT2 disease prostate cancer undergoing RP is higher than those published from "centres of excellence." Results from larger volume centres were not statistically significantly better, which contradicts previously published data. Factors, such as individual surgeon, patient selection, pathological processing and interpretation, may explain the differences.

Eliciting behavior change in a US sexual violence and intimate partner violence prevention program through utilization of Freire and discussion facilitation.

Designed by Migrant Clinicians Network, the Hombres Unidos Contra La Violencia Familiar (Men United Against Family Violence) Project used facilitated discussion groups as the method to encourage self-reflection and behavior change. Male participants were not taught to rectify any past sexual or intimate partner violence (SV/IPV) 'tendencies', rather the discussion facilitation allowed them to reflect on the SV/IPV that was present in their lives and in the Hispanic community. Subsequently, the sessions and self-reflection, coupled with the discussions with other participating males, empowered several participants to have further interactions about SV/IPV with individuals in their community. The discussions led participants to realize that SV/IPV existed in their community, but that there were males within their community that wanted to change. The Hombres Unidos Contra La Violencia Familiar project demonstrated that behavior change does not need to be actively persuaded, but that self-reflection, which elicits behavior change, can be achieved through facilitated discussion and by permitting the facilitators to become participants. By creating sessions that allow participants to construct their own understanding of the perceived problem while reflecting on their past behavior, true behavior change that is initiated by the participant can be achieved. Through discussion facilitation, a targeted and structured behavior change intervention can assist participants in realizing that their past actions were damaging to themselves and their community, while aiding the participant in employing self-initiated responses, learned within the discussions, to alter their behaviors.

Guideline for optimization of surgical and pathological quality performance for radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer management: evidentiary base.

BACKGROUND: The objective is to provide surgical and pathological guidelines for radical prostatectomy (RP) with or without concurrent pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) to achieve optimal benefit for patients, with minimal risk of harm. METHODS: For surgical questions, a literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database was performed. A literature search for the pathological questions was not conducted since the protocol for invasive carcinomas of the prostate gland developed by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) was endorsed. Urologists and pathologists were consulted for their assessment of the surgical and pathological recommendations. RESULTS: Limited high-quality evidence from 95 primary studies was available and, therefore, the expert panel developed recommendations on the basis of a consensus of the expert opinion of the working group and through a consultation with urologists and pathologists. In addition to the CAP protocol, some technical recommendations related to the handling and processing of the specimen were made. CONCLUSION: Radical prostatectomy is recommended for the surgical treatment of prostate cancer, depending on a patient's preoperative risk profile. The panel unanimously determined that the goals for RP are to attain a positive margin rate of <25% for pT2 disease, a mortality rate of <1%, rates of rectal injury of <1% and blood transfusion rates of <10% in non-anemic patients. Standard PLND should be mandatory in high-risk patients, should be recommended for intermediate-risk patients and should be optional for low-risk patients. The quality and effectiveness of this treatment and of subsequent patient care depend on good management, effective communication and reporting between surgeons and pathologists working together as part of a multidisciplinary team. The complete guideline document is posted on the Cancer Care Ontario website (www.cancercare.on.ca); search in their Toolbox, Quality Guidelines & Standards, Clinical Program category under "surgery."

Guideline for optimization of colorectal cancer surgery and pathology.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is evidence of gaps in care for colorectal cancer surgery related to obtaining negative resection margins and lymph node assessment. Recommendations on the surgical and pathological management of curable colon and rectal cancer were developed. METHODS: A systematic review on colorectal resection margins and lymph nodes was conducted. This evidence, combined with evidence from existing guidelines and expert consensus, was used to develop recommendations. The draft guideline was reviewed by an expert panel and was externally reviewed by practitioners in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: The search of the recent literature identified 107 articles pertinent to resection margins and lymph node assessment. The majority of the evidence was of poor quality. Of the 63 practitioners who reviewed the guideline, 97% agreed with the draft recommendations and 92% thought that the report should be approved as a practice guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving optimized performance concerning margin status and lymph node assessment requires the coordinated efforts of surgeons and pathologists, as well as other medical professionals. Focus should be on ensuring that colorectal cancers are resected with negative (R0) margins and that an adequate number of lymph nodes are assessed to allow for accurate decision making relating to prognosis and adjuvant therapy.