Primary care use after cancer treatment: an analysis of linked administrative data.

Background: Primary care-led follow-up is a safe and acceptable alternative to oncologist-led follow-up. We sought to investigate patterns of primary care use during cancer follow-up care. Methods: We identified all persons in Nova Scotia, diagnosed with an invasive breast, prostate, colorectal, or gynecologic cancer between January 2006 and December 2013. We linked this dataset to cancer centre, hospital discharge abstracts, physicians' billing, and census data. We identified a survivor cohort (n = 12,201), then descriptively examined primary care use during follow-up care. Multivariate Poisson and negative binomial regression, respectively, were used to examine primary care use for two outcomes: total number of primary care provider (pcp) visits (all reasons) and total number of cancer-specific pcp visits. Results: The mean numbers of pcp visits (all reasons) and cancer-specific pcp visits per year for survivors who did not receive cancer centre follow-up (cc-fup) were 8.12 and 0.43 visits, respectively, and for survivors who continued to receive cc-fup were 8.75 and 0.63 visits, respectively. Age, cancer type, stage at diagnosis, comorbidity scores, year of diagnosis, and receipt of cc-fup were associated with both outcomes. Compared with prostate cancer survivors, breast, colorectal, and gynecologic cancer survivors had, respectively, 56%, 69%, and 56% fewer expected cancer-specific PCP visits. Receipt of cc-fup increased the expected number of pcp visits (all reasons) by 12% and cancer-specific pcp visits by 50%. Conclusions: Primary care use was higher in survivors who continued to visit their oncology teams for follow-up. This suggests that survivors who remain with their oncology teams after treatment continue to have high needs not met by these teams alone.

Views of advanced cancer patients, families, and oncologists on initiating and engaging in advance care planning: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process by which patients reflect upon their goals, values and beliefs to allow them to make decisions about their future medical treatment that align with their goals and values, improving patient-centered care. Despite this, ACP is underutilized and is reported as one of the most difficult processes of oncology. We sought to: 1) explore patients' and families' understanding, experience and reflections on ACP, as well as what they need from their physicians during the process; 2) explore physicians' views of ACP, including their experiences with initiating ACP and views on ACP training. METHODS: This was a qualitative descriptive study in Nova Scotia, Canada with oncologists, advanced cancer out-patients and their family members. Semi-structured interviews with advanced cancer out-patients and their family members (n = 4 patients, 4 family members) and oncologists (n = 10) were conducted; each participant was recruited separately. Data were analyzed using constant comparative analysis, which entailed coding, categorizing, and identifying themes recurrent across the datasets. RESULTS: Themes were identified from the patient / family and oncologist groups, four and five respectively. Themes from patients / families included: 1) positive attitudes towards ACP; 2) healthcare professionals (HCPs) lack an understanding of patients' and families' informational needs during the ACP process; 3) limited access to services and supports; and 4) poor communication between HCPs. Themes from oncologists included: 1) initiation of ACP discussions; 2) navigating patient-family dynamics; 3) limited formal training in ACP; 4) ACP requires a team approach; and 5) lack of coordinated systems hinders ACP. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders believe ACP for advanced cancer patients is important. Patients and families desire earlier and more in-depth discussion of ACP, additional services and supports, and improved communication between their HCPs. In the absence of formal training or guidance, oncologists have used clinical acumen to initiate ACP and a collaborative healthcare team approach.

Women's views about breast cancer prevention at mammography screening units and well women's clinics.

Background: Women attending mammography screening units (msus) and well women's clinics (wwcs) represent a motivated cohort likely to engage in interventions aimed at primary breast cancer (bca) prevention. Methods: We used a feasibility questionnaire distributed to women (40-49 or 50-74 years of age) attending msus and wwcs in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to examine■ women's views about bca primary prevention and sources of health care information,■ prevalence of lifestyle-related bca risk factors, and■ predictors of prior mammography encounters within provincial screening guidelines.Variables examined included personal profiling, comorbidities, prior mammography uptake, lifestyle behaviours, socioeconomic status, health information sources, and willingness to discuss or implement lifestyle modifications, or endocrine therapy, or both. A logistic regression analysis examined associations with prior mammography encounters. Results: Of the 244 responses obtained during 1.5 months from women aged 40-49 years (n = 75) and 50-74 years (n = 169), 56% and 75% respectively sought or would prefer to receive health information from within, as opposed to outside, health care. Lifestyle-related bca risk factors were prevalent, and most women were willing to discuss or implement lifestyle modifications (93%) or endocrine therapy (67%). Of the two age groups, 49% and 93% respectively had previously undergone mammography within guidelines. Increasing age and marital status (single, separated, or divorced vs. married or partnered) were independent predictors of prior mammography encounters within guidelines for women 40-49 years of age; no independent predictors were observed in the older age group. Conclusions: Women attending msus and wwcs seem to largely adhere to mammography guidelines and appear motivated to engage in bca primary prevention strategies, including lifestyle modifications and endocrine therapy. Women's views as observed in this study provide a rationale for the potential incorporation of bca risk assessment within the "mammogram point of care" to engage motivated women in bca primary prevention strategies.

Changes in primary care provider utilization by phase of care for women diagnosed with breast cancer: a CanIMPACT longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) have always played an important role in cancer diagnosis. There is increasing awareness of the importance of their role during treatment and survivorship. We examined changes in PCP utilization from pre-diagnosis to survival for women diagnosed with breast cancer, factors associated with being a high user of primary care, and variation across four Canadian provinces. METHODS: The cohorts included women 18+ years of age diagnosed with stage I-III invasive breast cancer in years 2007-2012 in British Columbia (BC), Manitoba (MB), Ontario (ON), and Nova Scotia (NS) who had surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy and were alive 30+ months after diagnosis (N = 19,589). We compared the rate of PCP visits in each province across phases of care (pre-diagnosis, diagnosis, treatment, and survival years 1 to 4). RESULTS: PCP use was greatest during treatment and decreased with each successive survival year in all provinces. The unadjusted difference in PCP use between treatment and pre-diagnosis was most pronounced in BC where PCP use was six times higher during treatment than pre-diagnosis. Factors associated with being a high user of primary care during treatment included comorbidity and being a high user of care pre-diagnosis in all provinces. These factors were also associated with being a higher user of care during diagnosis and survival. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the traditional view that PCPs focus primarily on cancer prevention and early detection, we found that PCPs are involved in the care of women diagnosed with breast cancer across all phases of care.

Cross-Canada differences in early-stage breast cancer treatment and acute-care use.

Background: Chemotherapy has improved outcomes in early-stage breast cancer, but treatment practices vary, and use of acute care is common. We conducted a pan-Canadian study to describe treatment differences and the incidence of emergency department visits (edvs), edvs leading to hospitalization (edvhs), and direct hospitalizations (hs) during adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: The cohort consisted of women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (stages i-iii) during 2007-2012 in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, or Nova Scotia who underwent curative surgery. Parallel provincial analyses were undertaken using linked clinical, registry, and administrative databases. The incidences of edvs, edvhs, and hs in the 6 months after treatment initiation were examined for patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Results: The cohort consisted of 50,224 patients. The proportion of patients who received chemotherapy varied by province, with Ontario having the highest proportion (46.4%), and Nova Scotia, the lowest proportion (38.0%). Age, stage, receptor status, comorbidities, and geographic location were associated with receipt of chemotherapy in all provinces. Ontario had the highest proportion of patients experiencing an edv (36.1%), but the lowest proportion experiencing h (6.4%). Conversely, British Columbia had the lowest proportion of patients experiencing an edv (16.0%), but the highest proportion experiencing h (26.7%). The proportion of patients having an edvh was similar across provinces (13.9%-16.8%). Geographic location was associated with edvs, edvhs, and hs in all provinces. Conclusions: Intra- and inter-provincial differences in the use of chemotherapy and acute care were observed. Understanding variations in care can help to identify gaps and opportunities for improvement and shared learnings.

Adopting patient-centred tools in cancer care: role of evidence and other factors.

Background: Randomized controlled trials (rcts) provide limited evidence to support the use of survivorship care plans (scps), but they provide strong evidence for patient decision aids (ptdas). Despite that evidence, the uptake of ptdas has been limited, but scps are being endorsed and implemented in many cancer programs across Canada. The objective of the present study was to illuminate the decision-making processes involved in the adoption of scps and ptdas. Methods: Informed by the principles of grounded theory, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians, managers, and administrators who work in cancer care programs across Canada (n = 21). Data were collected and analyzed concurrently, using a constant comparative analysis approach. Data collection ended when theoretical saturation was reached. Results: For these types of patient-centred tools, participants noted that high-quality research evidence is often unnecessary for adoption decisions. Six key factors contribute to adoption or non-adoption decisions for scps and ptdas:■ Alignment of research evidence with other evidence■ Perceived clinician benefit■ Endorsement by organizations and professional bodies■ Existence of local champions■ Adaptability to local contexts■ Ability to routinize and reach a large patient population. Conclusions: High-level evidence is not always the main consideration when adopting new tools into practice. And yet, understanding how clinicians and health system decision-makers decide whether and how to adopt new tools is important to optimizing the use of new tools and practices that are supported by research evidence.

The role of scientific evidence in decisions to adopt complex innovations in cancer care settings: a multiple case study in Nova Scotia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Health care delivery and outcomes can be improved by using innovations (i.e., new ideas, technologies, and practices) supported by scientific evidence. However, scientific evidence may not be the foremost factor in adoption decisions and is rarely sufficient. The objective of this study was to examine the role of scientific evidence in decisions to adopt complex innovations in cancer care. METHODS: Using an explanatory, multiple case study design, we examined the adoption of complex innovations in five purposively sampled cases in Nova Scotia, Canada. Data were collected via documents and key informant interviews. Data analysis involved an in-depth analysis of each case, followed by a cross-case analysis to develop theoretically informed, generalizable knowledge on the role of scientific evidence in innovation adoption that may be applied to similar settings and contexts. RESULTS: The analyses identified key concepts alongside important caveats and considerations. Key concepts were (1) scientific evidence underpinned the adoption process, (2) evidence from multiple sources informed decision-making, (3) decision-makers considered three key issues when making decisions, and (4) champions were essential to eventual adoption. Caveats and considerations related to the presence of urgent problems and short-term financial pressures and minimizing risk. CONCLUSIONS: The findings revealed the different types of issues decision-makers consider while making these decisions and why different sources of evidence are needed in these processes. Future research should examine how different types of evidence are legitimized and why some types are prioritized over others.

Comparing enrolees with non-enrolees of cancer-patient navigation at end of life.

Background: Cancer-patient navigators who are oncology nurses support and connect patients to resources throughout the cancer care trajectory, including end of life. Although qualitative and cohort studies of navigated patients have been reported, no population-based studies were found. The present population-based study compared demographic, disease, and outcome characteristics for decedents who had been diagnosed with cancer by whether they did or did not see a navigator. Methods: This retrospective study used patient-based administrative data in Nova Scotia (cancer registry, death certificates, navigation visits) to generate descriptive statistics. The study population included all adults diagnosed with cancer who died during 2011-2014 of a cancer or non-cancer cause of death. Results: Of the 7694 study decedents, 74.9% had died of cancer. Of those individuals, 40% had seen a navigator at some point in their disease trajectory. The comparable percentage for those who did not die of cancer was 11.9%. Decedents at the oldest ages had the lowest navigation rates. Navigation rates, time from diagnosis to death, and time from last navigation visit to death varied by disease site. Conclusions: This population-based study of cancer-patient navigation enrolees compared with non-enrolees is the first of its kind. Most findings were consistent with expectations. However, we do not know whether the rates of navigation are consistent with the navigation needs of the population diagnosed with cancer. Because more people are living longer with cancer and because the population is aging, ongoing surveillance of who requires and who is using navigation services is warranted.

Patterns of cancer centre follow-up care for survivors of breast, colorectal, gynecologic, and prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Rising demand on cancer system resources, alongside mounting evidence that demonstrates the safety and acceptability of primary care-led follow-up care, has resulted in some cancer centres discharging patients back to primary care after treatment. At the same time, the ways in which routine cancer follow-up care is provided across Canada continue to vary widely. The objectives of the present study were to investigate patterns of routine follow-up care at a cancer centre for breast, colorectal, gynecologic, and prostate cancer survivors; factors associated with receipt of follow-up care at a cancer centre; and changes in follow-up care at a cancer centre over time. METHODS: We identified all people diagnosed in Nova Scotia with an invasive breast, colorectal, gynecologic, or prostate cancer between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2013. We linked the resulting population-based dataset, at the patient level, to cancer centre or clinic data and to census data. We identified a nonmetastatic survivor cohort (n = 12,267) and developed decision rules to differentiate routine from non-routine visits during the follow-up care period (commencing 1 year after diagnosis). Descriptive statistics were computed to describe the patterns of routine follow-up care at a cancer centre. Negative binomial regression was used to examine factors associated with visits made and changes over time. RESULTS: Nearly half the survivors (48.4%) had at least 1 follow-up visit to the cancer centre, with variation by disease site (range: 30.2%-62.4%). Disease site and stage at diagnosis were associated with receipt of follow-up care at a cancer centre. For instance, compared with breast cancer survivors, survivors of gynecologic cancer had more visits [incidence rate ratio (irr): 1.48; 95% confidence interval (ci): 1.34 to 1.64], and survivors of colorectal cancer had fewer visits (irr: 0.45; 95% ci: 0.40 to 0.51). Year of diagnosis was associated with follow-up at a cancer centre, with each successive calendar year being associated with an 8% increase in visits made (irr: 1.08; 95% ci: 1.07 to 1.10). CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence that follow-up care can be effectively and safely delivered in primary care, and despite intensifying demands on oncology services, many survivors continue to receive routine follow-up care at a cancer centre.

Use of physician services during the survivorship phase: a multi-province study of women diagnosed with breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Oncologists have traditionally been responsible for providing routine follow-up care for cancer survivors; in recent years, however, primary care providers (pcps) are taking a greater role in care during the follow-up period. In the present study, we used a longitudinal multi-province retrospective cohort study to examine how primary care and specialist care intersect in the delivery of breast cancer follow-up care. METHODS: Various databases (registry, clinical, and administrative) were linked in each of four provinces: British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. Population-based cohorts of breast cancer survivors were identified in each province. Physician visits were identified using billings or claims data and were classified as visits to primary care (total, breast cancer-specific, and other), oncology (medical oncology, radiation oncology, and surgery), and other specialties. The mean numbers of visits by physician type and specialty, or by combinations thereof, were examined. The mean numbers of visits for each follow-up year were also examined by physician type. RESULTS: The results showed that many women (>64%) in each province received care from both primary care and oncology providers during the follow-up period. The mean number of breast cancer-specific visits to primary care and visits to oncology declined with each follow-up year. Interprovincial variations were observed, with greater surgeon follow-up in Nova Scotia and greater primary care follow-up in British Columbia. Provincial differences could reflect variations in policies and recommendations, relevant initiatives, and resources or infrastructure to support pcp-led follow-up care. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing the role of pcps in breast cancer follow-up care might require strategies to change attitudes about pcp-led follow-up and to better support pcps in providing survivorship care.

Multigene expression profile testing in breast cancer: is there a role for family physicians?

BACKGROUND: Family physicians (fps) play a role in aspects of personalized medicine in cancer, including assessment of increased risk because of family history. Little is known about the potential role of fps in supporting cancer patients who undergo tumour gene expression profile (gep) testing. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study with qualitative and quantitative components. Qualitative data from focus groups and interviews with fps and cancer specialists about the role of fps in breast cancer gep testing were obtained during studies conducted within the pan-Canadian canimpact research program. We determined the number of visits by breast cancer patients to a fp between the first medical oncology visit and the start of chemotherapy, a period when patients might be considering results of gep testing. RESULTS: The fps and cancer specialists felt that ordering gep tests and explaining the results was the role of the oncologist. A new fp role was identified relating to the fp-patient relationship: supporting patients in making adjuvant therapy decisions informed by gep tests by considering the patient's comorbid conditions, social situation, and preferences. Lack of fp knowledge and resources, and challenges in fp-oncologist communication were seen as significant barriers to that role. Between 28% and 38% of patients visited a fp between the first oncology visit and the start of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest an emerging role for fps in supporting patients who are making adjuvant treatment decisions after receiving the results of gep testing. For success in this new role, education and point-of-care tools, together with more effective communication strategies between fps and oncologists, are needed.

Challenges and insights in implementing coordinated care between oncology and primary care providers: a Canadian perspective.

We report here on the current state of cancer care coordination in Canada and discuss challenges and insights with respect to the implementation of collaborative models of care. We also make recommendations for future research. This work is based on the findings of the Canadian Team to Improve Community-Based Cancer Care Along the Continuum (canimpact) casebook project. The casebook project identified models of collaborative cancer care by systematically documenting and analyzing Canadian initiatives that aim to improve or enhance care coordination between primary care providers and oncology specialists. The casebook profiles 24 initiatives, most of which focus on breast or colorectal cancer and target survivorship or follow-up care. Current key challenges in cancer care coordination are associated with establishing program support, engaging primary care providers in the provision of care, clearly defining provider roles and responsibilities, and establishing effective project or program planning and evaluation. Researchers studying coordinated models of cancer care should focus on designing knowledge translation strategies with updated and refined governance and on establishing appropriate protocols for both implementation and evaluation.

Increasing our understanding of dying of breast cancer: Comorbidities and care.

Background: Screening and treatment for breast cancer have improved. However, attention to palliative support and non-cancer co-morbidities has been limited. This study identified types of care for and co-morbidities of persons dying of breast cancer compared to persons dying from all cancers and from non-cancer causes. Methods: Linked administrative data from population-based registries were used to examine 121,458 deaths in Nova Scotia from 1995 to 2009. Results: Breast cancer decedents' mean age was similar to that of all cancer decedents (72.0 versus 72.1 years), but their age spread was greater (20-59 years: 23.1% versus 16.7%; 90+ years: 11.2% versus 6.5%). Among women dying of breast cancer, 15.6% were enrolled in the diabetes registry and 15.1% in the cardiovascular registry, indicating that they had these non-cancer conditions prior to their death. Compared to all cancer decedents, breast cancer decedents were twice as likely to have dementia as a cause of death, and were less likely to die in hospital but more likely to die in a nursing home. Breast cancer decedents had place of death rates more similar to non-cancer than cancer decedents. Conclusions: Rates of dementia and diabetes among the breast cancer decedents were particularly note-worthy in this novel study given that these comorbidities have not received much attention in the breast cancer research literature. Further collaboration with non-cancer disease programs is advised. The extent of adequate comprehensive palliative support for the 20% of the breast cancer decedents who are nursing home residents requires investigation.

Breast and cervical cancer screening behaviours among colorectal cancer survivors in Nova Scotia.

PURPOSE: We analyzed patterns and factors associated with receipt of breast and cervical cancer screening in a cohort of colorectal cancer survivors. METHODS: Individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer in Nova Scotia between January 2001 and December 2005 were eligible for inclusion. Receipt of breast and cervical cancer screening was determined using administrative data. General-population age restrictions were used in the analysis (breast: 40-69 years; cervical: 21-75 years). Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess time to first screen. RESULTS: Of 318 and 443 colorectal cancer survivors eligible for the breast and cervical cancer screening analysis respectively, 30.1% [95% confidence interval (ci): 21.2% to 39.0%] never received screening mammography, and 47.9% (95% ci: 37.8% to 58.0%) never received cervical cancer screening during the study period. Receipt of screening before the colorectal cancer diagnosis was strongly associated with receipt of screening after diagnosis (hazard ratio for breast cancer screening: 4.71; 95% ci: 3.42 to 6.51; hazard ratio for cervical cancer screening: 6.83; 95% ci: 4.58 to 10.16). CONCLUSIONS: Many colorectal cancer survivors within general-population screening age recommendations did not receive breast and cervical cancer screening. Future research should focus on survivors who meet age recommendations for population-based cancer screening.

Cross-disciplinary research in cancer: an opportunity to narrow the knowledge-practice gap.

Health services researchers have consistently identified a gap between what is identified as "best practice" and what actually happens in clinical care. Despite nearly two decades of a growing evidence-based practice movement, narrowing the knowledge-practice gap continues to be a slow, complex, and poorly understood process. Here, we contend that cross-disciplinary research is increasingly relevant and important to reducing that gap, particularly research that encompasses the notion of transdisciplinarity, wherein multiple academic disciplines and non-academic individuals and groups are integrated into the research process. The assimilation of diverse perspectives, research approaches, and types of knowledge is potentially effective in helping research teams tackle real-world patient care issues, create more practice-based evidence, and translate the results to clinical and community care settings. The goals of this paper are to present and discuss cross-disciplinary approaches to health research and to provide two examples of how engaging in such research may optimize the use of research in cancer care.

Clinical information available to oncologists in surgically treated rectal cancer: room to improve.

INTRODUCTION: In rectal cancer, decisions about the use of adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment rely on clinical information from a variety of sources. Currently, the quality and accuracy of the aggregate of this clinical information is unclear. The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the completeness and quality of clinical information available to oncologists managing rectal cancer. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with rectal cancer in Nova Scotia between 2001 and 2005 were identified through the provincial cancer registry. The registry was linked to other administrative databases to obtain demographic, diagnostic, and treatment data. Patients undergoing radiation oncology consultation were identified, and a standardized review of the cancer centre chart was performed on a random sample, stratified by year. RESULTS: For the 222 patients reviewed, the relevant endoscopy report was present in 113 cases (51%). The level of the tumour was documented in 75% of those reports, and colonoscopy completeness, in 81%. The relevant operative report was available in 192 cases (87%). Tumour level was described in 59% of those reports, and local extension, in 73%. Elements of total mesorectal excision were partially described in 97%. In pathology reports (10% of which were synoptic), we observed significant variability in the presence of important elements. Reporting of those elements was significantly better in the synoptic pathology reports. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical information related to adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy decision-making in rectal cancer is often not available or incomplete. A synoptic reporting system in endoscopy, surgery, and pathology could potentially be a beneficial tool in rectal cancer care.

Views of breast and colorectal cancer survivors on their routine follow-up care.

OBJECTIVE: Our understanding of optimum health care delivery for cancer survivors is limited by the lack of a patient-centred perspective. The objectives of the present study were to explore the views of breast and colorectal cancer survivors on their routine follow-up care, with respect to needs, preferences, and quality of follow-up, and their views on cancer specialist- compared with family physician (fp)-led follow-up care. METHODS: In Nova Scotia, Canada, 23 cancer survivors (13 breast, 10 colorectal) participated in either a focus group or a one-on-one interview. Participants were asked to reflect upon their lives as cancer survivors and on the type and quality of care and support they received during the follow-up period. Each focus group or interview was transcribed verbatim, and the transcripts were audited and subjected to a thematic analysis. RESULTS: SIX THEMES WERE IDENTIFIED: My care is my responsibilityHow I receive information on follow-up careI have many care needsI want to be prepared and informedThe role of my fp in my cancer experience and follow-up careThe role of media Survivors often characterized the post-primary treatment experience as lacking in information and preparation for follow-up and providing inadequate support to address many of the care needs prevalent in survivor populations. Despite valuing fp participation in follow-up care, many survivors continued to receive comfort and reassurance from specialist care. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings point to the need to implement strategies that better prepare breast cancer and colorectal cancer survivors for post-treatment care and that reassure survivors of the ability of their fp to provide quality care during this period.

Factors related to the implementation and use of an innovation in cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Nationally, efforts to implement an innovation in cancer surgery-a Web-based synoptic reporting tool-are ongoing in five provinces. The objective of the present study was to identify the key multilevel factors influencing implementation and early use of this innovation for breast and colorectal cancer surgery at two academic hospitals in Halifax, Nova Scotia. METHODS: We used case-study methodology to examine the implementation of surgical synoptic reporting. Methods included semi-structured interviews with key informants (surgeons, implementation team members, and report end users; n = 9), nonparticipant observation, and document analysis. A thematic analysis was conducted separately for each method, followed by explanation-building to integrate the evidence and to identify the key multilevel factors influencing implementation. An audit was performed to determine use. RESULTS: Key factors influencing implementation were these: Innovation-values fitFlexibility with the innovation and implementationThe innovation is not flawlessStrengthening the climate for implementationResource needs and availabilityPartner engagementSurgeon champions and involvementIn a 6-month period after implementation, 91.2% and 58.0% respectively of eligible breast and colorectal cancer surgeries were reported using the new tool. CONCLUSIONS: An improved understanding of the multilevel factors influencing the implementation of innovations is critical to planning effective change interventions in health care. Further study is needed to explore differences in the use of the innovation between breast and colorectal cancer surgeons. Findings will inform the study of additional cases of synoptic reporting implementation, enabling cross-case analyses and identification of higher-level themes that may be applied in similar settings or contexts.

A prospective study of peri-diagnostic and surgical wait times for patients with presumptive colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer.

The objective of this study was to prospectively measure peri-diagnostic and surgical time intervals for patients with suspected colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer. Prospective eligible patients were referred to a regional hospital in Ottawa, Canada between February 2004 and February 2005 for diagnostic assessment of presumptive colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer. Chart abstractions were used to measure nine time intervals; the primary interval was the date of referral for diagnostic assessment to the date the patient was informed of the diagnosis. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) was assessed 5 days following the patient being informed of their diagnosis. The median (IQR) time for the primary interval was 71 (30-110), 37 (29-49), and 81 (56-100) days for colorectal, lung, and prostate patients, respectively (Kruskal-Wallis P=0.0001). This interval was significantly less for colorectal patients diagnosed with cancer than for those without cancer (median difference=59.0 days; Wilcoxon P=0.003). No differences in HRQL existed for patients with cancer and those without. Colorectal and prostate patients wait longer between referral for suspected cancer and being informed of their diagnosis than current recommendations. The shorter diagnostic intervals for colorectal patients with cancer suggest clinicians have an effective process for triaging patients referred for diagnostic assessment.

The insulin sensitiser pioglitazone does not influence skin microcirculatory function in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Insulin resistance is associated with abnormal microvascular function. Treatment with insulin sensitisers may provoke oedema, suggesting microvascular effects. The mechanisms underlying the peripheral oedema observed during glucose-lowering treatment with thiazolidinediones are unclear. Therefore we examined the effect of pioglitazone on microvascular variables involved in oedema formation. METHODS: Subjects (40-80 years) with type 2 diabetes and on insulin were randomised to 9 weeks of pioglitazone therapy (30 mg/day; n=14) or placebo (n=15). The following assessments were performed at baseline and 9 weeks: microvascular filtration capacity; isovolumetric venous pressure; capillary pressure; capillary recruitment following venous or arterial occlusion; postural vasoconstriction; and maximum blood flow. A number of haematological variables were also measured including vascular endothelium growth factor (VEGF), IL-6 and C-reactive protein (CRP). RESULTS: Pioglitazone did not significantly influence any microcirculatory variable as compared with placebo (analysis of covariance [ANCOVA] for microvascular filtration capacity for the two groups, p=0.26). Mean VEGF increased with pioglitazone (61.1 pg/ml), but not significantly more than placebo (9.76 pg/ml, p=0.94). HbA(1c) levels and the inflammatory markers IL-6 and CRP decreased with pioglitazone compared with placebo (ANCOVA: p=0.009, p=0.001 and p=0.004, respectively). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Pioglitazone improved glycaemic control and inflammatory markers over 9 weeks but had no effect on microcirculatory variables associated with oedema or insulin resistance in type 2 diabetic patients treated with insulin.