Effect of Cancer Pain Guideline Implementation on Pain Outcomes Among Adult Outpatients With Cancer-Related Pain: A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: An evidence-practice gap exists for cancer pain management, and cancer pain remains prevalent and disabling. Objectives: To evaluate the capacity of 3 cancer pain guideline implementation strategies to improve pain-related outcomes for patients attending oncology and palliative care outpatient services. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, stepped wedge, cluster-randomized, nonblinded, clinical trial was conducted between 2014 and 2019. The clusters were cancer centers in Australia providing oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics. Participants included a consecutive cohort of adult outpatients with advanced cancer and a worst pain severity score of 2 or more out of 10 on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Data were collected between August 2015 and May 2019. Data were analyzed July to October 2019 and reanalyzed November to December 2021. Interventions: Guideline implementation strategies at the cluster, health professional, and patient levels introduced with the support of a clinical champion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary measure of effect was the percentage of participants initially screened as having moderate to severe worst pain (NRS ≥ 5) who experienced a clinically important improvement of 30% or more 1 week later. Secondary outcomes included mean average pain, patient empowerment, fidelity to the intervention, and quality of life and were measured in all participants with a pain score of 2 or more 10 at weeks 1, 2, and 4. Results: Of 8099 patients screened at 6 clusters, 1564 were eligible, and 359 were recruited during the control phase (mean [SD] age, 64.2 [12.1] years; 196 men [55%]) and 329 during the intervention phase (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [12.7] years; 155 men [47%]), with no significant differences between phases on baseline measures. The mean (SD) baseline worst pain scores were 5.0 (2.6) and 4.9 (2.6) for control and intervention phases, respectively. The mean (SD) baseline average pain scores were 3.5 (2.1) for both groups. For the primary outcome, the proportions of participants with a 30% or greater reduction in a pain score of 5 or more of 10 at baseline were similar in the control and intervention phases (31 of 280 participants [11.9%] vs 30 of 264 participants [11.8%]; OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79-1.60; P = .51). No significant differences were found in secondary outcomes between phases. Fidelity to the intervention was low. Conclusions and Relevance: A suite of implementation strategies was insufficient to improve pain-related outcomes for outpatients with cancer-related pain. Further evaluation is needed to determine the required clinical resources needed to enable wide-scale uptake of the fundamental elements of cancer pain care. Ongoing quality improvement activities should be supported to improve sustainability.

Maternal and perinatal outcomes by planned place of birth in Australia 2000 - 2012: a linked population data study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare perinatal and maternal outcomes for Australian women with uncomplicated pregnancies according to planned place of birth, that is, in hospital labour wards, birth centres or at home. DESIGN: A population-based retrospective design, linking and analysing routinely collected electronic data. Analysis comprised χ2 tests and binary logistic regression for categorical data, yielding adjusted ORs. Continuous data were analysed using analysis of variance. SETTING: All eight Australian states and territories. PARTICIPANTS: Women with uncomplicated pregnancies who gave birth between 2000 and 2012 to a singleton baby in cephalic presentation at between 37 and 41 completed weeks' gestation. Of the 1 251 420 births, 1 171 703 (93.6%) were planned in hospital labour wards, 71 505 (5.7%) in birth centres and 8212 (0.7%) at home. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mode of birth, normal labour and birth, interventions and procedures during labour and birth, maternal complications, admission to special care/high dependency or intensive care units (mother or infant) and perinatal mortality (intrapartum stillbirth and neonatal death). RESULTS: Compared with planned hospital births, the odds of normal labour and birth were over twice as high in planned birth centre births (adjusted OR (AOR) 2.72; 99% CI 2.63 to 2.81) and nearly six times as high in planned home births (AOR 5.91; 99% CI 5.15 to 6.78). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of intrapartum stillbirths, early or late neonatal deaths between the three planned places of birth. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first Australia-wide study to examine outcomes by planned place of birth. For healthy women in Australia having an uncomplicated pregnancy, planned births in birth centres or at home are associated with positive maternal outcomes although the number of homebirths was small overall. There were no significant differences in the perinatal mortality rate, although the absolute numbers of deaths were very small and therefore firm conclusions cannot be drawn about perinatal mortality outcomes.

Creating the first national linked dataset on perinatal and maternal outcomes in Australia: Methods and challenges.

BACKGROUND: Data linkage offers a powerful mechanism for examining healthcare outcomes across populations and can generate substantial robust datasets using routinely collected electronic data. However, it presents methodological challenges, especially in Australia where eight separate states and territories maintain health datasets. This study used linked data to investigate perinatal and maternal outcomes in relation to place of birth. It examined data from all eight jurisdictions regarding births planned in hospitals, birth centres and at home. Data linkage enabled the first Australia-wide dataset on birth outcomes. However, jurisdictional differences in data collection created challenges in obtaining comparable cohorts of women with similar low-risk pregnancies in all birth settings. The objective of this paper is to describe the techniques for managing previously linked data, and specifically for ensuring the resulting dataset contained only low-risk pregnancies. METHODS: This paper indicates the procedures for preparing and merging linked perinatal, inpatient and mortality data from different sources, providing technical guidance to address challenges arising in linked data study designs. RESULTS: We combined data from eight jurisdictions linking four collections of administrative healthcare and civil registration data. The merging process ensured that variables were consistent, compatible and relevant to study aims. To generate comparable cohorts for all three birth settings, we developed increasingly complex strategies to ensure that the dataset eliminated women with pregnancies at risk of complications during labour and birth. It was then possible to compare birth outcomes for comparable samples, enabling specific examination of the impact of birth setting on maternal and infant safety across Australia. CONCLUSIONS: Data linkage is a valuable resource to enhance knowledge about birth outcomes from different settings, notwithstanding methodological challenges. Researchers can develop and share practical techniques to address these challenges. Study findings suggest that jurisdictions develop more consistent data collections to facilitate future data linkage.