Typical Time to Treatment of Patients With Lung Cancer in a Multisite, US-Based Study.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of high-quality, timely lung cancer care and the need to have indicators to measure timeliness are increasingly discussed in the United States. This study explored when and why delays occur in lung cancer care and compared timeliness between two states with divergent disease incidence. METHODS: Patients with small-cell or non-small-cell lung cancer were recruited through cancer centers, outpatient clinics, and community approaches, and interviewed over the phone. Statistical analysis of patient-reported dates included descriptive statistics and comparing time intervals between states and across the sites with Mann-Whitney U tests. Additionally, data from patients with longer timelines were qualitatively analyzed to identify possible reasons for delays. RESULTS: On the basis of the dates reported by 275 patients, the median time from first presentation to a clinician to treatment was 52 days; 29% of patients experienced a wait of 90 days or more. Median times for key intervals were 36.5 days from abnormal radiograph to treatment, 9.5 days from initial presentation to specialist referral, 15 days from patient informed of diagnosis to first therapy, and 16 days from referral to treatment to first therapy. More than one quarter of patients perceived delays in care. No significant differences in length of time intervals were identified between states. Monitoring of small nodules, missed diagnosis, and other reasons for longer timelines were documented. CONCLUSION: Results defined typical time to treatment of patients with lung cancer across a variety of health systems and should facilitate establishing metrics for determining timeliness of lung cancer care.

Evaluation of a collaborative program on smoking cessation: translating outcomes framework into practice.

INTRODUCTION: Although evaluating at multiple outcome levels has been proposed for continuing education activities and programs, it is a complex undertaking and is not done routinely, especially in collaborative, multicomponent programs. This article reports on strategies used and results obtained in an evaluation project that examined multiple outcomes of a US-based collaborative, multicomponent smoking cessation educational program for clinicians. METHODS: Evaluation was organized conceptually around the 6 levels of an outcomes-based evaluation model and was conducted using registration data, postactivity evaluations, clinical vignettes with questions assessing knowledge and competence in participants and in a comparison group, a commitment to change approach, data from patient charts to assess clinician compliance on 8 performance measures, and tobacco cessation rates. Additional methods included a success case method study of 9 practices participating in performance improvement (PI) activities and assessment of partner collaboration using a written survey and interviews. RESULTS: The program reached more than 43,000 clinicians who participated in a variety of activities. Participants indicated a high level of satisfaction with the program's educational activities and demonstrated higher scores than a comparison group on 6 of 7 competencies. The majority of participants who responded to commitment to change questions reported intended and implemented practice changes consistent with desired outcomes. Performance outcomes of 3 PI activities varied, with greater improvements observed in 1 activity (9.0% to 36.2% improvement across 8 measures). Lower performance outcomes, but a smoking quit rate of 46.8%, was observed in 2 other PI activities. DISCUSSION: The program had an overall positive impact on the measured variables for clinicians and their patients. Use of 1 outcomes assessment framework acceptable to all members of the collaborative, common measures and evaluation techniques, and centralized data repositories contributed to the success of the program evaluation reported here and is recommended to others who are considering a collaborative program evaluation.

Peering inside the clock: using success case method to determine how and why practice-based educational interventions succeed.

INTRODUCTION: No educational method or combination of methods will facilitate implementation of clinical practice guidelines in all clinical contexts. To develop an empirical basis for aligning methods to contexts, we need to move beyond "Does it work?" to also ask "What works for whom and under what conditions?" This study employed Success Case Method to understand how 3 performance improvement CME activities contributed to implementation of tobacco cessation practice guidelines in 9 outpatient practices. METHODS: Success criteria were applied to clinical data from 93 practices, generating a pool of 14 success cases; 9 were recruited into the study. We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with 1 to 4 informants in each practice. Individual case reports were developed summarizing changes made, what was done to effect the changes, relevant contextual factors, and contributions of the educational interventions to change. A cross-case analysis followed. RESULTS: Twenty informants were interviewed. Practice changes varied in number and degree. Implementation mechanisms included acquisition of new knowledge and skills, making improving cessation practice an active goal, engaging the clinical team, adopting a more proactive approach with smokers, and making smokers and clinical practice performance more visible. Contextual factors influencing the implementation process were also identified. DISCUSSION: The study shows that (1) the appropriate target of an educational intervention may be a team rather than an individual, (2) implementing even relatively simple practice guidelines can be a complex process, and (3) change requires scientific and practical knowledge. A richer understanding of implementation mechanisms and contextual factors is needed to guide educational planning.

Commitment to practice change: an evaluator's perspective.

A commitment to practice change (CTC) approach may be used in educational program evaluation to document practice changes, examine the educational impact relative to the instructional focus, and improve understanding of the learning-to-change continuum. The authors reviewed various components and procedures of this approach and discussed some practical aspects of its application using an example of a study evaluating a presentation on menopausal care for primary care physicians. The CTC approach is a valuable evaluation tool, but it requires supplementation with other data to have a complete picture of the impact of education on practice. From the evaluation perspective, the self-reported nature of the CTC data is a major limitation of this method.

Learning to collaborate: a case study of performance improvement CME.

INTRODUCTION: Performance Improvement Continuing Medical Education (PI CME) is a mechanism for joining quality improvement (QI) in health care to continuing medical education (CME) systems together. Although QI practices and CME approaches have been recognized for years, what emerges from their integration is largely unfamiliar, because it requires the collaboration of CME providers and stakeholders within the health care systems who traditionally have not worked together and may not have the same understanding of QI issues to close performance gaps. This study describes how an academic institution and a community-based primary care practice collaborated to enhance patient care in the area of hypertension. It offers lessons learned from a PI CME activity in the area of hypertension. METHODS: This was an observational case study. Data were collected through interviews, observations of educational events, and review of documents such as learning logs, which were designed to: (1) help physicians learn and change, (2) satisfy requirements for CME credit, (3) serve as the basis for reimbursement, and (4) provide data for the case study. RESULTS: Nine clinicians from one clinic completed the PI CME activity, achieved measurable improvements in their practice, and contributed to systems change. The study highlighted (1) the value of shared goals and agreement on the process among the participants, planners, and others involved; (2) the advantage of a multidisciplinary approach; (3) the importance of supporting clinicians' continuing motivation to participate; and (4) the need to allow sufficient time to enable the initiative to evolve. DISCUSSION: PI CME required unprecedented collaboration between CME planners and QI stakeholders to enable change in clinical practice.

A model of teaching-learning transactions in generalist-specialist consultations.

INTRODUCTION: A new paradigm in continuing medical education is characterized by emphasis on physicians' learning in practice. Consistent with this paradigm, our study examined a subset of clinical practice--generalist-specialist consultations--from an educational perspective. METHODS: We applied the grounded-theory method with semistructured interviews. Ten primary care physicians and 9 internal medicine subspecialists were interviewed regarding their approaches to learning and teaching during generalist-specialist consultations. RESULTS: Based on 48 formal and informal consultations reported by physicians, we developed a theory of teaching-learning transactions in generalist-specialist consultations. DISCUSSION: As a teaching-learning transaction, the mutual learning process in generalist-specialist consultations involves 3 components: needs assessment, dialogue, and sufficiency. Providers of continuing medical education may use the proposed theoretical framework to help clinicians and health care organizations analyze and enhance educationally valuable interactions at the interface of primary and secondary care.

Education through telemedicine networks: setting quality standards.

Quality standards for educational programming have received limited attention in telemedicine. We selected five sets of standards from the distance education literature established by: (1) the American Council on Education; (2) the American Distance Education Consortium; (3) the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions; (4) the Distance Education and Training Council; (5) the Innovations in Distance Education Project. The standards were reviewed to determine the purposes they were intended to serve and the process by which they were established. The content of the five sets of standards were summarized around the 'four commonplaces' of education: learner, teacher, curriculum and context. Four major findings emerged. First, none of the sets of standards addresses all of the issues that are potentially relevant to telemedicine education; all emphasize certain topics while neglecting others. Second, there are some important aspects of telemedicine that are not addressed at all, such as patient confidentiality. Third, the standards generally provide a framework for defining high quality in distance education, leaving to those at the local level the task of deciding how a standard applies in their setting. Finally, the standards reviewed have many elements that could potentially apply to telemedicine education. Setting quality standards for education through telemedicine requires a systematic approach and a means for continuous improvement of those standards.

Learning to use learning resources during medical school and residency.

OBJECTIVES: This study (1) examined the natural history of learning to use learning resources by medical students and residents and (2) considered whether that history is consistent with the ways in which physicians approach their learning tasks. METHODS: The authors conducted and analyzed thirty-two open-ended interviews of first-year and third-year medical students and first-year and senior residents in internal medicine, family medicine, or pediatrics. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Learning to use learning resources occurs at the same time as learning done to address instructional and clinical problems that physicians-in-training face, with all kinds of learning following well-documented stages. Skills for using resources are developed gradually and by overcoming barriers such as time constraints and existing habits. CONCLUSIONS: Implications of the natural history of learning to use learning resources can be employed by librarians and medical teachers to facilitate self-directed learning for physicians-in-training. Specific recommendations are provided.

Setting quality standards for web-based continuing medical education.

Continuing medical education (CME) on the Internet has grown steadily over the past several years. However, the quality of Web-based CME has received limited attention in the medical literature, and there have been few attempts to articulate quality standards. This article describes five sets of standards published in the distance education literature and explores whether the standards might be used to inform and enhance approaches to designing and delivering Web-based CME programs. Standards synthesize practical knowledge, best practices, and research findings. They vary in their perspectives on quality, fall short of being comprehensive, and convey many elements that apply to Web CME. We conclude that published standards in the distance education literature can provide valuable guidance to Web CME providers, and there is a clear need for additional research into questions about what works in Web-based education and why.

Use of theory to interpret elements of change.

Actions useful in reducing unacceptable variation in physicians' clinical activities have been identified through critical reviews of randomized controlled trials, and, from them, Richard Grol proposed six elements of effective change for mounting programs to improve clinical practice. The elements include consideration of the complex reality of clinical practice, attention to the designated change, analysis of the target group and setting, mixed interventions to address needs, and a plan of action. Although empirically based, the elements lack a theoretical underpinning that explains why the elements work. This article interprets the elements using theories separately advanced by Dewey, Slotnick, and Wenger to suggest ways for understanding what studies have shown.