Staff- and service-level factors associated with organisational readiness to implement a clinical pathway for the identification, assessment, and management of anxiety and depression in adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Organisational readiness is recognised as a key factor impacting the successful translation of research findings into practice. Within psycho-oncology, measuring organisational readiness and understanding factors impacting organisational readiness is crucial as it is often challenging to implement evidence-based findings into routine cancer care. In this quantitative study, we examined the level of organisational readiness of cancer services preparing to implement a clinical pathway for the screening, assessment, and management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients (the ADAPT CP) within a cluster randomised controlled trial and sought to identify staff- and service-level factors associated with organisational readiness. METHODS: Multidisciplinary staff across 12 Australian cancer services were identified. Their perceptions of their services' readiness to implement the ADAPT CP in the cancer stream or treatment modality selected within their service was assessed prior to implementation using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change scale. Data collection included staff demographic and professional characteristics, and their perception of the ADAPT CP using a set of 13 study-specific survey items. Service characteristics were captured using a site profile audit form and workflows during site engagement. RESULTS: Fourteen staff- and service-level factors were identified as potentially impacting organisational readiness. To identify factors that best explained organisational readiness, separate univariate analyses were conducted for each factor, followed by a backward elimination regression. Compared to services that implemented the ADAPT CP in one treatment modality, those opting for four treatment modalities had significantly higher organisational readiness scores. Staff in administrative/technical support/non-clinical roles had significantly higher organisational readiness scores compared to psychosocial staff. Higher organisational readiness scores were also significantly related to more positive perceptions of the ADAPT CP. CONCLUSIONS: Readiness to implement an anxiety and depression clinical pathway within 12 oncology services was high. This may be attributed to the extensive engagement with services prior to implementation. The factors associated with organisational readiness highlight the importance of ensuring adequate resourcing and supporting staff to implement change, effectively communicating the value of the change, and taking a whole-of-service approach to implementing the change. Future longitudinal studies may identify factors associated with ongoing readiness and engagement prior to implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ADAPT RCT was registered prospectively with the ANZCTR on 22/03/2017. Trial ID ACTRN12617000411347. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372486&isReview=true .

Effect of core versus enhanced implementation strategies on adherence to a clinical pathway for managing anxiety and depression in cancer patients in routine care: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal strategies to facilitate implementation of evidence-based clinical pathways are unclear. We evaluated two implementation strategies (Core versus Enhanced) to facilitate implementation of a clinical pathway for the management of anxiety and depression in cancer patients (the ADAPT CP). METHODS: Twelve cancer services in NSW Australia were cluster randomised, stratified by service size, to the Core versus Enhanced implementation strategy. Each strategy was in place for 12 months, facilitating uptake of the ADAPT CP (the intervention being implemented). The Core strategy included a lead team with champions, staff training and awareness campaigns prior to implementation, plus access to feedback reports and telephone or online support during implementation. The Enhanced strategy included all Core supports plus monthly lead team meetings, and proactive, ongoing advice on managing barriers, staff training and awareness campaigns throughout implementation. All patients at participating sites were offered the ADAPT CP as part of routine care, and if agreeable, completed screening measures. They were allocated a severity step for anxiety/depression from one (minimal) to five (severe) and recommended management appropriate to their severity step. Multi-level mixed-effect regression analyses examined the effect of Core versus Enhanced implementation strategy on adherence to the ADAPT CP (binary primary outcome: adherent ≥ 70% of key ADAPT CP components achieved versus non-adherent < 70%), with continuous adherence as a secondary outcome. Interaction between study arm and anxiety/depression severity step was also explored. RESULTS: Of 1280 registered patients, 696 (54%) completed at least one screening. As patients were encouraged to re-screen, there were in total 1323 screening events (883 in Core and 440 in Enhanced services). The main effect of implementation strategy on adherence was non-significant in both binary and continuous analyses. Anxiety/depression step was significant, with adherence being higher for step 1 than for other steps (p = 0.001, OR = 0.05, 95% CI 0.02-0.10). The interaction between study arm and anxiety/depression step was significant (p = 0.02) in the continuous adherence analysis only: adherence was significantly higher (by 7.6% points (95% CI 0.08-15.1%) for step 3 in the Enhanced arm (p = .048) and trending to significance for step 4. DISCUSSION: These results support ongoing implementation effort for the first year of implementation to ensure successful uptake of new clinical pathways in over-burdened clinical services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR Registration: ACTRN12617000411347 (Trial registered 22/03/2017; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372486&isReview=true ).

Acceptability and appropriateness of a clinical pathway for managing anxiety and depression in cancer patients: a mixed methods study of staff perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Clinical pathways (CPs) can improve health outcomes, but to be sustainable, must be deemed acceptable and appropriate by staff. A CP for screening and management of anxiety and depression in cancer patients (the ADAPT CP) was implemented in 12 Australian oncology services for 12 months, within a cluster randomised controlled trial of core versus enhanced implementation strategies. This paper compares staff-perceived acceptability and appropriateness of the ADAPT CP across study arms. METHODS: Multi-disciplinary lead teams at each service tailored, planned, championed and implemented the CP. Staff at participating services, purposively selected for diversity, completed a survey and participated in an interview prior to implementation (T0), and at midpoint (6 months: T1) and end (12 months: T2) of implementation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Seven metropolitan and 5 regional services participated. Questionnaires were completed by 106, 58 and 57 staff at T0, T1 and T2 respectively. Eighty-eight staff consented to be interviewed at T0, with 89 and 76 at T1 and T2 (response rates 70%, 66% and 57%, respectively). Acceptability/appropriateness, on the quantitative measure, was high at T0 (mean of 31/35) and remained at that level throughout the study, with no differences between staff from core versus enhanced services. Perceived burden was relatively low (mean of 11/20) with no change over time. Lowest scores and greatest variability pertained to perceived impact on workload, time and cost. Four major themes were identified: 1) Mental health is an important issue which ADAPT addresses; 2) ADAPT helps staff deliver best care, and reduces staff stress; 3) ADAPT is fit for purpose, for both cancer care services and patients; 4) ADAPT: a catalyst for change. Opposing viewpoints are outlined. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated high staff-perceived acceptability and appropriateness of the ADAPT CP with regards to its focus, evidence-base, utility to staff and patients, and ability to create change. However, concerns remained regarding burden on staff and time commitment. Strategies from a policy and managerial level will likely be required to overcome the latter issues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered prospectively with the ANZCTR on 22/3/2017. Trial ID ACTRN12617000411347. https://www.anzctr.org.au/ .

Impact of Individual, Organizational, and Technological Factors on the Implementation of an Online Portal to Support a Clinical Pathway Addressing Psycho-Oncology Care: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical pathways (CPs) can improve patient outcomes but can be complex to implement. Technologies, such as clinical decision support (CDS) tools, can facilitate their use, but require end-user testing in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: This study applied the Technology Acceptance Model to evaluate the individual, organizational, and technological contexts impacting application of a portal to facilitate a CP for anxiety and depression (the ADAPT Portal) in a metropolitan cancer service. The ADAPT Portal triggers patient screening on patient reported outcomes, alerts staff to high scores, recommends evidence-based management, and triggers review and rescreening at set intervals. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative data on portal activity, data accuracy, and health service staff perspectives were collected. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, and thematic analysis was applied to qualitative data. RESULTS: Overall, 15 (100% of those invited) health service staff agreed to be interviewed. During the pilot, 73 users (36 health service staff members and 37 patients) were registered on the ADAPT Portal. Of the 37 patients registered, 16 (43%) completed screening at least once, with seven screening positive and triaged appropriately. In total, 34 support requests were lodged, resulting in 17 portal enhancements (technical issues). Health service staff considered the ADAPT Portal easy to use and useful; however, some deemed it unnecessary or burdensome (individual issues), particularly in a busy cancer service (organizational issues). CONCLUSIONS: User testing of a CDS to facilitate screening and assessment of anxiety and depression in cancer patients highlighted some technological issues in implementing the ADAPT CDS, resulting in 17 enhancements. Our results highlight the importance of obtaining health service staff feedback when piloting specialized CDS tools and addressing contextual factors when implementing them.

The value of real-world testing: a qualitative feasibility study to explore staff and organisational barriers and strategies to support implementation of a clinical pathway for the management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Effective translation of evidence-based research into clinical practice requires assessment of the many factors that can impact implementation success. Research methods that draw on recognised implementation frameworks, such as the Promoting Action Research in Health Services (PARiHS) framework, and that test feasibility to gain information prior to full-scale roll-out, can support a more structured approach to implementation. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents qualitative findings from a feasibility study in one cancer service of an online portal to operationalise a clinical pathway for the screening, assessment and management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients. The aim of this study was to explore staff perspectives on the feasibility and acceptance of a range of strategies to support implementation in order to inform the full-scale roll-out. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with fifteen hospital staff holding a range of clinical, administrative and managerial roles, and with differing levels of exposure to the pathway. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, and themes were subsequently organised within the constructs of the PARiHS framework. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators that affected the feasibility of the online portal and implementation strategies were organised across eight key themes: staff perceptions, culture, external influences, attitudes to psychosocial care, intervention fit, familiarity, burden and engagement. These themes mapped to the PARiHS framework's three domains of evidence, context and facilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation success may be threatened by a range of factors related to the real-world context, perceptions of the intervention (evidence) and the process by which it is introduced (facilitation). Feasibility testing of implementation strategies can provide unique insights into issues likely to influence full-scale implementation, allowing for early tailoring and more effective facilitation which may save time, money and effort in the long-term. Use of a determinant implementation framework can assist researchers to synthesise and effectively respond to barriers as they arise. While the current feasibility study related to a specific implementation, strategies such as regular engagement with local stakeholders, and discussion of barriers arising in real-time during early testing is likely to be of benefit to all researchers and clinicians seeking to maximise the likelihood of long-term implementation success.

The Elusive Search for Success: Defining and Measuring Implementation Outcomes in a Real-World Hospital Trial.

Objective and Study Setting: Research efforts to identify factors that influence successful implementation are growing. This paper describes methods of defining and measuring outcomes of implementation success, using a cluster randomized controlled trial with 12 cancer services in Australia comparing the effectiveness of implementation strategies to support adherence to the Australian Clinical Pathway for the Screening, Assessment and Management of Anxiety and Depression in Adult Cancer Patients (ADAPT CP). Study Design and Methods: Using the StaRI guidelines, a process evaluation was planned to explore participant experience of the ADAPT CP, resources and implementation strategies according to the Implementation Outcomes Framework. This study focused on identifying measurable outcome criteria, prior to data collection for the trial, which is currently in progress. Principal Findings: We translated each implementation outcome into clearly defined and measurable criteria, noting whether each addressed the ADAPT CP, resources or implementation strategies, or a combination of the three. A consensus process defined measures for the primary outcome (adherence) and secondary (implementation) outcomes; this process included literature review, discussion and clear measurement parameters. Based on our experience, we present an approach that could be used as a guide for other researchers and clinicians seeking to define success in their work. Conclusions: Defining and operationalizing success in real-world implementation yields a range of methodological challenges and complexities that may be overcome by iterative review and engagement with end users. A clear understanding of how outcomes are defined and measured, based on a strong theoretical framework, is crucial to meaningful measurement and outcomes. The conceptual approach described in this article could be generalized for use in other studies. Trial Registration: The ADAPT Program to support the management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients: a cluster randomized trial to evaluate different implementation strategies of the Clinical Pathway for Screening, Assessment and Management of Anxiety and Depression in Adult Cancer Patients was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Registration Number: ACTRN12617000411347.

Comparison of implementation strategies to influence adherence to the clinical pathway for screening, assessment and management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients (ADAPT CP): study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Health service change is difficult to achieve. One strategy to facilitate such change is the clinical pathway, a guide for clinicians containing a defined set of evidence-based interventions for a specific condition. However, optimal strategies for implementing clinical pathways are not well understood. Building on a strong evidence-base, the Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG) in Australia developed an evidence and consensus-based clinical pathway for screening, assessing and managing cancer-related anxiety and depression (ADAPT CP) and web-based resources to support it - staff training, patient education, cognitive-behavioural therapy and a management system (ADAPT Portal). The ADAPT Portal manages patient screening and prompts staff to follow the recommendations of the ADAPT CP. This study compares the clinical and cost effectiveness of two implementation strategies (varying in resource intensiveness), designed to encourage adherence to the ADAPT CP over a 12-month period. METHODS: This cluster randomised controlled trial will recruit 12 cancer service sites, stratified by size (large versus small), and randomised at site level to a standard (Core) versus supported (Enhanced) implementation strategy. After a 3-month period of site engagement, staff training and site tailoring of the ADAPT CP and Portal, each site will "Go-live", implementing the ADAPT CP for 12 months. During the implementation phase, all eligible patients will be introduced to the ADAPT CP as routine care. Patient participants will be registered on the ADAPT Portal to complete screening for anxiety and depression. Staff will be responsible for responding to prompts to follow the ADAPT CP. The primary outcome will be adherence to the ADAPT CP. Secondary outcomes include staff attitudes to and experiences of following the ADAPT CP, using the ADAPT Portal and being exposed to ADAPT implementation strategies, collected using quantitative and qualitative methods. Data will be collected at T0 (baseline, after site engagement), T1 (6 months post Go-live) and T2 (12 months post Go-live). DISCUSSION: This will be the first cluster randomised trial to establish optimal levels of implementation effort and associated costs to achieve successful uptake of a clinical pathway within cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered prospectively with the ANZCTR on 22/3/2017. Trial ID ACTRN12617000411347.

Baseline quality of life predicts pelvic exenteration outcome.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent rectal cancer affects a significant group of patients with no current consensus on management. This study investigated patients' quality of life (QoL) in the 12 months after pelvic exenteration. METHOD: Prospective cohort study with clinical and QoL data collected at baseline and 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. QoL trajectories were modelled over 12 months from date of discharge using linear mixed models. RESULTS: Of 117 patients, 93 underwent pelvic exenteration surgery, 24 did not. Thirty-day mortality was nil for both groups. For patients who had surgery, 15 (16%) died within 12 months of surgery compared with nine (38%) of the non-surgery group. Baseline QoL scores were highly variable. The non-exenteration patients' QoL gradually declined over 12 months while exenteration patients declined then recovered. Patients with high baseline QoL scores remained high, and those with low baseline QoL remained low. Baseline QoL score, gender and bony resection were significant predictors of QoL score at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Baseline QoL is a significant, independent predictor of patients' QoL after pelvic exenteration for recurrent rectal cancer.

Palliative Pelvic Exenteration: Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced pelvic malignancy can be associated with disabling symptoms and reduced quality of life. If resectable with clear margins, a pelvic exenteration can offer long-term survival and improved quality of life. Its role in the palliation of symptoms has been described; however, the clinical outcomes and surgical indication are poorly defined. OBJECTIVE: This study describes the clinical and quality-of-life outcomes after palliative pelvic exenteration for advanced pelvic malignancy. DESIGN: Clinical data and patient-reported outcomes were collected for patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for symptom palliation. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center for pelvic exenteration. PATIENTS: All of the patients undergoing palliative pelvic exenteration for advanced primary rectal or recurrent cancer were included in our analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported quality of life and physical and mental health status were measured. Quality-of-life trajectories were modeled over the 12 months from the date of surgery using linear mixed models. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients underwent pelvic exenteration for symptom palliation. Although there were no in-hospital deaths, 34% experienced significant morbidity. Patient-reported quality of life reduced postoperatively and gradually declined thereafter. Overall median survival was 24 months, with a 1-year mortality rate of 31%. There was a significant survival difference for the 39 patients undergoing pelvic exenteration compared with those patients who only had a debulking/bypass procedure or were closed without definitive treatment (overall median survival = 24 versus 9 months; p = <0.02). LIMITATIONS: Disease and patient heterogeneity limit the interpretation of these results. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative pelvic exenteration is a technically demanding operation that can be performed safely in a dedicated exenteration center. However, no durable palliation of symptoms with associated improved or sustained quality of life was observed, and the role of palliation therefore remains highly controversial in this complex group of patients.

Benchmarking trial between France and Australia comparing management of primary rectal cancer beyond TME and locally recurrent rectal cancer (PelviCare Trial): rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with rectal cancer, 5-10% have a primary rectal cancer beyond the total mesorectal excision plane (PRC-bTME) and 10% recur locally following primary surgery (LRRC). In both cases, patients 'care remains challenging with a significant worldwide variation in practice regarding overall management and criteria for operative intervention. These variations in practice can be explained by structural and organizational differences, as well as cultural dissimilarities. However, surgical resection of PRC-bTME and LRRC provides the best chance of long-term survival after complete resection (R0). With regards to the organization of the healthcare system and the operative criteria for these patients, France and Australia seem to be highly different. A benchmarking-type analysis between French and Australian clinical practice, with regards to the care and management of PRC-bTME and LRRC, would allow understanding of patients' care and management structures as well as individual and collective mechanisms of operative decision-making in order to ensure equitable practice and improve survival for these patients. METHODS/DESIGN: The current study is an international Benchmarking trial comparing two cohorts of 120 consecutive patients with non-metastatic PRC-bTME and LRRC. Patients with curative and palliative treatment intent are included. The study design has three main parts: (1) French and Australian cohorts including clinical, radiological and surgical data, quality of life (MOS SF36, FACT-C) and distress level (Distress thermometer) at the inclusion, 6 and 12 months; (2) experimental analyses consisting of a blinded inter-country reading of pelvic MRI to assess operatory decisions; (3) qualitative analyses based on MDT meeting observation, semi-structured interviews and focus groups of health professional attendees and conducted by a research psychologist in both countries using the same guides. The primary endpoint will be the clinical resection rate. Secondary end points will be concordance rate between French and Australian operative decisions based on the inter-country reading MRI, post-operative mortality and morbidity rates, oncological outcomes based on resection status and one-year overall and disease-free survival, patients' quality of life and distress level. Qualitative analysis will compare obstacles and facilitators of operative decision-making between both countries. DISCUSSION: Benchmarking can be defined as a comparison and learning process which will allow, in the context of PRC-bTME and LRRC, to understand and to share the whole process management of these patientsbetween Farnce and Australia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02551471 . (date of registration: 09/14/2015).

Pubic Bone Excision and Perineal Urethrectomy for Radical Anterior Compartment Excision During Pelvic Exenteration.

BACKGROUND: Malignant infiltration of the pubic bone traditionally is considered inoperable. Consequently, there is little published on surgical approaches to resection of the anterior pelvic bone. En bloc partial or complete pubic bone excision can be performed depending on the degree of involvement. OBJECTIVE: This article describes our surgical approach of pelvic exenteration with en bloc composite pubic bone excision. DESIGN: The surgical technique describes 2 distinct aspects of the surgery, first, a perineal as opposed to abdominal transection of the urethra, and, second, varying extents of en bloc pubic bone excision. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pelvic tumors infiltrating the pubic bone require radical en bloc composite bone resection to achieve an R0 margin that should translate to longer-term survival versus nonoperative treatments. RESULTS: Results of our study are currently under review. CONCLUSIONS: As the magnitude of pelvic exenteration surgery continues to evolve for all compartments of the pelvis, malignant infiltration of the anterior pelvic bone should not be considered a contraindication to surgery.

Does radiotherapy of the primary rectal cancer affect prognosis after pelvic exenteration for recurrent rectal cancer?

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy reduces local recurrence rates but is also capable of short- and long-term toxicity. It may also render treatment of local recurrence more challenging if it develops despite previous radiotherapy. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the impact of radiotherapy for the primary rectal cancer on outcomes after pelvic exenteration for local recurrence. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective review of exenteration databases. SETTING: The study took place at a quaternary referral center that specializes in pelvic exenteration. PATIENTS: Patients referred for pelvic exenteration from October 1994 to November 2012 were reviewed. Patients who did and did not receive radiotherapy as part of their primary rectal cancer treatment were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes of interest were resection margins, overall survival, disease-free survival, and surgical morbidities. RESULTS: There were 108 patients, of which 87 were eligible for analysis. Patients who received radiotherapy for their primary rectal cancer (n = 41) required more radical exenterations (68% vs 44%; p = 0.020), had lower rates of clear resection margins (63% vs 87%; p = 0.010), had increased rates of surgical complications per patient (p = 0.014), and had a lower disease-free survival (p = 0.022). Overall survival and disease-free survival in patients with clear margins were also lower in the primary irradiated patients (p = 0.049 and p < 0.0001). This difference in survival persisted in multivariate analysis that corrected for T and N stages of the primary tumor. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its retrospective nature and heterogeneous radiotherapy regimes among radiotherapy patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who previously received radiotherapy for primary rectal cancer treatment have worse oncologic outcomes than those who had not received radiotherapy after pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

Clinical, MRI, and PET-CT criteria used by surgeons to determine suitability for pelvic exenteration surgery for recurrent rectal cancers: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection with clear margins is the major predictor of long-term survival in recurrent rectal cancer. The extent of pelvic exenteration surgery depends on many factors including clinical and radiological criteria. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish which clinical, MRI, and PET criteria were considered important by surgeons who perform pelvic exenteration surgery, when assessing a patient with recurrent rectal cancer for pelvic exenteration surgery. DESIGN: A 2-stage Delphi study was conducted among an international panel of 36 colorectal surgeons recruited via a snowball-sampling method. Surgeons rated the importance of 99 clinical and radiological criteria by using a 9-point scale. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consensus was attained when at least 85% of the panel rated criteria within 3 points. RESULTS: Clinical factors suggestive of systemic disease, symptoms of advanced local recurrence such as pain, surgical fitness, and cognitive impairment were considered important by the panel when considering suitability for surgery. Agreement regarding the indication for surgery was reached for 20 radiological factors. Strong agreement was achieved for factors associated with tumor involvement in the axial and anterior compartments. For only 16 of these 20 radiological factors was there an agreement that a clear resection margin was likely to be achieved. LIMITATIONS: Further rounds of Delphi may have yielded greater consensus. CONCLUSION: This study has identified a set of criteria considered by experts to be important in evaluating patients' suitability for pelvic exenteration surgery. Evaluation of these criteria is required to determine their clinical utility in predicting a negative resection margin at pelvic exenteration surgery.

Randomized pilot evaluation of the supportive care intervention "CONNECT" for people following surgery for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Improvements can be made in the quality of cancer care if supportive care needs are addressed; however, there are few trials of supportive care interventions to guide policy and practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of a nurse-delivered telephone supportive intervention (the "CONNECT" intervention). DESIGN: This study was a pilot randomized controlled trial. Intervention group patients received 5 calls from a specialist colorectal nurse in the 6 months after hospital discharge. Each call was standardized, comprising the assessment of unmet need and the provision of information and emotional support. CONNECT was in addition to standard clinical follow-up. Patients allocated to the control group received standard follow-up only. SETTING: This study took place at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n = 75) were included who had been surgically treated for colorectal cancer (any stage). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were the unmet supportive care needs, health service utilization, and quality of life at 1, 3, and 6 months postdischarge. RESULTS: Of 87 eligible patients, 75 consented (86% consent rate). Thirty-nine patients were randomly assigned to CONNECT and 36 to usual care. At 6 months, there was a clinically relevant, but nonsignificant reduction in presentations to emergency departments (21% vs 33%; χ1 = 1.41, P = .23) and readmission to the hospital (37% vs 47%; χ1 = 0.82, P = .37) among intervention compared with control group participants. Nonsignificant differences between groups were found for all unmet supportive care need and quality-of-life scores, change scores, and trends. However, at 6 months, total quality-of-life scores were higher for intervention group patients than controls (106.0 vs 98.6). This difference (7.4) was clinically relevant. Improvements in total quality-of-life change scores demonstrated that at 6 months, improvements were more than twice as large and clinically significant in the intervention compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: CONNECT has shown promising indications on health system and patient outcomes that warrant a larger study to further investigate the potential of this intervention.

What are the current barriers to effective cancer care coordination? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: National cancer policies identify the improvement of care coordination as a priority to improve the delivery of health services for people with cancer. Identification of the current barriers to effective cancer care coordination is needed to drive service improvement. METHODS: A qualitative study was undertaken in which semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups were conducted with those best placed to identify issues; patients who had been treated for a range of cancers and their carers as well as health professionals involved in providing cancer care. Data collection continued until saturation of concepts was reached. A grounded theory influenced approach was used to explore the participants' experiences and views of cancer care coordination. RESULTS: Overall, 20 patients, four carers and 29 health professionals participated. Barriers to cancer care coordination related to six aspects of care namely, recognising health professional roles and responsibilities, implementing comprehensive multidisciplinary team meetings, transitioning of care: falling through the cracks, inadequate communication between specialist and primary care, inequitable access to health services and managing scarce resources. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified a number of barriers to coordination of cancer care. Development and evaluation of interventions based on these findings is now required.

Preferences for outcomes of treatment for rectal cancer: patient and clinician utilities and their application in an interactive computer-based decision aid.

PURPOSE: To quantify the importance that patients and clinicians assign to specific quality-of-life outcomes associated with the treatment of rectal cancer and to demonstrate a clinical application of these data in a computer-based multidimension decision aid (Annalisa). METHODS: For patients, a researcher-administered questionnaire using the time trade-off method was used to quantify the importance of nine outcomes. Information was ascertained from clinicians by use of a self-administered questionnaire. Responses were ranked and compared between groups. Mean values for each outcome were entered into Annalisa. RESULTS: Overall, 103 patients, 87 colorectal surgeons, 97 medical oncologists, and 80 radiation oncologists participated. For all groups, local cancer recurrence in the pelvis and fecal incontinence (mean utility scores 0.53 and 0.57, respectively) were the two outcomes to most avoid. In Annalisa, the "best fit" treatment for patients and surgeons was a low anterior resection with postoperative chemotherapy, whereas for medical and radiation oncologists the best-fit treatment was surgery alone. CONCLUSION: Local recurrence and fecal incontinence are considered the worst outcomes by patients and clinicians alike, but values for other outcomes vary. Decision aids that incorporate patients' individual values with evidence-based data hold considerable potential to optimize treatment decision-making.

Implementing patient decision support tools: moving beyond academia?

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the feasibility of implementing three decision support tools (DSTs) for people with rectal cancer within the surgical consultation. METHODS: Twenty colorectal surgeons participated in a focus group or individual interviews. Colorectal surgeons were also asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: All surgeons responded encouragingly to the concept of DSTs. However, for every positive statement an accompanying caveat was made and these were either a criticism of each tool or a barrier to their implementation. Surgeons stated DSTs should be used by patients and surgeons together (80%). The majority (70-75%) thought each tool was 'useful' or 'extremely useful'. However, there were strong views that in their current form the DSTs would not feasible to be used within the surgical consultation. Time restraints, personal and clinical characteristics of the patient, the content of each tool, the potential negative impact on the doctor-patient relationship were noted as real barriers to their implementation. CONCLUSION: Surgeons have identified a number of barriers that may limit implementation of DSTs into routine clinical practice. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Feasibility and implementation studies have the potential to provide important information to help guide development, evaluation and implementation of DSTs.