Rates of adherence to cancer treatment guidelines in Australia and the factors associated with adherence: A systematic review.

Adherence to cancer treatment clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) varies enormously across Australia, despite being associated with improved patient outcomes. This systematic review aims to characterize adherence rates to active-cancer treatment CPGs in Australia and related factors to inform future implementation strategies. Five databases were systematically searched, abstracts were screened for eligibility, a full-text review and critical appraisal of eligible studies performed, and data extracted. A narrative synthesis of factors associated with adherence was conducted, and the median adherence rates within cancer streams calculated. A total of 21,031 abstracts were identified. After duplicates were removed, abstracts screened, and full texts reviewed, 20 studies focused on adherence to active-cancer treatment CPGs were included. Overall adherence rates ranged from 29% to 100%. Receipt of guideline recommended treatments was higher for patients who were younger (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL], colorectal, lung, and breast cancer); female (breast and lung cancer), and male (DLBCL and colorectal cancer); never smokers (DLBCL and lung cancer); non-Indigenous Australians (cervical and lung cancer); with less advanced stage disease (colorectal, lung, and cervical cancer), without comorbidities (DLBCL, colorectal, and lung cancer); with good-excellent Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (lung cancer); living in moderately accessible places (colon cancer); and; treated in metropolitan facilities (DLBLC, breast and colon cancer). This review characterized active-cancer treatment CPG adherence rates and associated factors in Australia. Future targeted CPG implementation strategies should account for these factors, to redress unwarranted variation particularly in vulnerable populations, and improve patient outcomes (Prospero number: CRD42020222962).

Determining the role and responsibilities of the community epilepsy nurse in the management of epilepsy.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to enhance the understanding of the core elements and influencing factors on the community-based epilepsy nurse's role and responsibilities. BACKGROUND: Internationally, epilepsy nurse specialists play a key role in providing person-centred care and management of epilepsy but there is a gap in understanding of their role in the community. DESIGN: A national three-stage, mixed-method study was conducted. METHODS: One-on-one, in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted online with 12 community-based epilepsy nurses (Stage 1); retrospective analysis of data collected from the National Epilepsy Line, a nurse-led community helpline (Stage 2); and focus group conducted with four epilepsy nurses, to delve further into emerging findings (Stage 3). A thematic analysis was conducted in Stages 1 and 3, and a descriptive statistical analysis of Stage 2 data. Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative studies checklist was followed for reporting. RESULTS: Three key themes emerged: (1) The epilepsy nurse career trajectory highlighted a lack of standardised qualifications, competencies, and career opportunities. (2) The key components of the epilepsy nurse role explored role diversity, responsibilities, and models of practice in the management of living with epilepsy, and experiences navigating complex fragmented systems and practices. (3) Shifting work practices detailed the adapting work practices, impacted by changing service demands, including COVID-19 pandemic experiences, role boundaries, funding, and resource availability. CONCLUSION: Community epilepsy nurses play a pivotal role in providing holistic, person-centred epilepsy management They contribute to identifying and addressing service gaps through innovating and implementing change in service design and delivery. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Epilepsy nurses' person-centred approach to epilepsy management is influenced by the limited investment in epilepsy-specific integrated care initiatives, and their perceived value is impacted by the lack of national standardisation of their role and scope of practice. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Only epilepsy nurses' perspectives were sought.

Systematic review of the factors and the key indicators that identify doctors at risk of complaints, malpractice claims or impaired performance.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the risk factors associated with complaints, malpractice claims and impaired performance in medical practitioners. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Ovid-Medline, Ovid Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 2011 until March 2020. Reference lists and Google were also handsearched. RESULTS: Sixty-seven peer-reviewed papers and three grey literature publications from 2011 to March 2020 were reviewed by pairs of independent reviewers. Twenty-three key factors identified, which were categorised as demographic or workplace related. Gender, age, years spent in practice and greater number of patient lists were associated with higher risk of malpractice claim or complaint. Risk factors associated with physician impaired performance included substance abuse and burn-out. CONCLUSIONS: It is likely that risk factors are interdependent with no single factor as a strong predictor of a doctor's risk to the public. Risk factors for malpractice claim or complaint are likely to be country specific due to differences in governance structures, processes and funding. Risk factors for impaired performance are likely to be specialty specific due to differences in work culture and access to substances. New ways of supporting doctors might be developed, using risk factor data to reduce adverse events and patient harm. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020182045.