Which strategies support the effective use of clinical practice guidelines and clinical quality registry data to inform health service delivery? A systematic review

Evaluating clinical practice guidelines for the management of rectal cancer: Did they get it RIGHT?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are crucial tools for clinicians seeking to deliver evidence-based patient care. We utilized the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist to assess the reporting quality of CPGs addressing the management of rectal cancer.

METHODS

Four multidisciplinary rectal cancer CPGs published 2017-2022 were evaluated: American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). We quantitatively assessed each CPG using the RIGHT checklist and qualitative analysis was performed to generate common themes.

RESULTS

RIGHT checklist items fulfilled by each CPG ranged from 12 to 17 (out of 22). Each guideline demonstrated unique categories of weakness: ASCRS in Basic Information (1 of 4 items), ESMO in Evidence (1 of 3), NCCN in Recommendations (1 of 3), and NICE in Review and Quality Assurance (0 of 2). Common themes that emerged included sprase discussion on the financial aspects of rectal cancer management and lack of transparency in formulating recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite their variability, each of the 22 checklist elements are present in contemporary CPGs. Utilizing the RIGHT checklist would allow experts to create guidelines adhering to high-quality reporting standards.

Unlocking the restraint-Development of a behaviour change intervention to increase the provision of modified constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Strong evidence supports the provision of modified constraint-induced movement therapy (mCIMT) to improve upper limb function after stroke. A service audit identified that very few patients received mCIMT in a large subacute, early-supported discharge rehabilitation service. A behaviour change intervention was developed to increase the provision of mCIMT following an unsuccessful 'education only' attempt. This paper aims to systematically document the steps undertaken and to provide practical guidance to clinicians and rehabilitation services to implement this complex, yet effective, rehabilitation intervention.

METHODS

This clinician behaviour change intervention was developed over five stages and led by a working group of neurological experts (n = 3). Data collection methods included informal discussions with clinicians and an online survey (n = 35). The staged process included reflection on why the first attempt did not improve the provision of mCIMT (stage 1), mapping barriers and enablers to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and behaviour change wheel (BCW) to guide the behaviour change techniques (stages 2 and 3), developing a suitable mCIMT protocol (stage 4), and delivering the behaviour change intervention (stage 5).

RESULTS

Reflection among the working group identified the need for upskilling in mCIMT delivery and the use of a behaviour change framework to guide the implementation program. Key determinants of behaviour change operated within the TDF domains of knowledge, skills, environmental context and resources, social role and identity, and social influences. Following the development of a context-specific mCIMT protocol, the BCW guided the behaviour change intervention, which included education, training, persuasion, environmental restructuring, and modelling.

CONCLUSION

This paper provides an example of using the TDF and BCW to support the implementation of mCIMT in a large early-supported discharge service. It outlines the suite of behaviour change techniques used to influence clinician behaviour. The success of this behaviour change intervention will be explored in future research.

Adopting standardized cancer patient pathways as a policy at different organizational levels in the Swedish Health System

BACKGROUND

Standardized cancer patient pathways as a new policy has been adopted in healthcare to improve the quality of cancer care. Within the health systems, actors at different levels manage the adoption of new policies to develop healthcare. The various actors on different levels play an important role and influence the policy adoption process. Thus, knowledge about how these actors use strategies when adopting cancer patient pathways as a policy in the health system becomes central.

METHOD

The study's aim was to explore how actors at different organizational levels in the health system adopted cancer patient pathways. Our overarching case was the Swedish health system at the national, regional, and local levels. Constructivist Grounded Theory Method was used to collect and analyze qualitative interviews with persons working in organizations directly involved in adopting cancer patient pathways at each level. Twelve individual and nine group interviews were conducted including 53 participants.

RESULTS

Organizational actors at three different levels used distinct strategies during the adoption of cancer patient pathways: acting as-missionaries, fixers, and doers. Acting as missionaries consisted of preaching the idea of cancer patient pathways and framing it with a common purpose to agree upon. Acting as fixers entailed creating a space to put cancer patient pathways into practice and overcome challenges to this. Acting as doers comprised balancing breadth and speed in healthcare provision with not being involved in the development of cancer patient pathways for the local context. These strategies were not developed in isolation from the other organizational levels but rather, each level interacted with one another.

CONCLUSIONS

When adopting new policies, it is important to be aware of the different strategies and actors at various organizational levels in health systems. Even when actors on different levels developed separate strategies, if these contribute to fulfilling the four domains of inter-organizational collaboration, they can work well together to adopt new policies. Our study highlighted that the application of two domains was lacking, which meant that local actors were not sufficiently involved in collaboration, thus constricting the local use and optimization of cancer patient pathways in practice.

Reducing unwarranted variation: can a 'clinical dashboard' be helpful for hospital executive boards and top-level leaders?

BACKGROUND/AIM

In the past decades, there has been an increasing focus on defining, identifying and reducing unwarranted variation in clinical practice. There have been several attempts to monitor and reduce unwarranted variation, but the experience so far is that these initiatives have failed to reach their goals. In this article, we present the initial process of developing a safety, quality and utilisation rate dashboard ('clinical dashboard') based on a selection of data routinely reported to executive boards and top-level leaders in Norwegian specialist healthcare.

METHODS

We used a modified version of Wennberg's categorisation of healthcare delivery to develop the dashboard, focusing on variation in (1) effective care and patient safety and (2) preference-sensitive and supply-sensitive care.

RESULTS

Effective care and patient safety are monitored with outcome measures such as 30-day mortality after hospital admission and 5-year cancer survival, whereas utilisation rates for procedures selected on cost and volume are used to follow variations in preference-sensitive and supply-sensitive care.

CONCLUSION

We argue that selecting quality indicators of patient safety, quality and utilisation rates and presenting them in a dashboard may help executive hospital boards and top-level leaders to focus on unwarranted variation.