Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 21, Issue 7, pp 2181–2187 | Cite as

Results of a Surgeon-Directed Quality Improvement Project on Breast Cancer Surgery Outcomes in South-Central Ontario

  • Peter Lovrics
  • Nicole Hodgson
  • Mary Ann O’Brien
  • Lehana Thabane
  • Sylvie Cornacchi
  • Angela Coates
  • Barbara Heller
  • Susan Reid
  • Kenneth Sanders
  • Marko Simunovic
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

Gaps in breast cancer (BC) surgical care have been identified. We have completed a surgeon-directed, iterative project to improve the quality of BC surgery in South-Central Ontario.

Methods

Surgeons performing BC surgery in a single Ontario health region were invited to participate. Interventions included: audit and feedback (A&F) of surgeon-selected quality indicators (QIs), workshops, and tailoring interviews. Workshops and A&F occurred yearly from 2005–2012. QIs included: preoperative imaging; preoperative core biopsy; positive margin rates; specimen orientation labeling; intraoperative specimen radiography of nonpalpable lesions; T1/T2 mastectomy rates; reoperation for positive margins; sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) rates, number of sentinel lymph nodes; and days to receive pathology report. Semistructured tailoring interviews were conducted to identify facilitators and barriers to improved quality. All results were disseminated to all surgeons performing breast surgery in the study region.

Results

Over 6 time periods, 1,828 BC charts were reviewed from 12 hospitals (8 community and 4 academic). Twenty-two to 40 participants attended each workshop. Sustained improvement in rates of positive margins, preoperative core biopsies, specimen orientation labeling, and SLNB were seen. Mastectomy rates and overall axillary staging rates did not change, whereas time to receive pathology report increased. The tailoring interviews concerning positive margins, SLNB, and reoperation for positive margins identified facilitators and barriers relevant to surgeons.

Conclusions

This surgeon-directed, regional project resulted in meaningful improvement in numerous QIs. There was consistent and sustained participation by surgeons, highlighting the importance of integrating the clinicians in a long-term, iterative quality improvement strategy in BC surgery.

Keywords

Breast Cancer Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Axillary Lymph Node Dissection Positive Margin Completion Axillary Lymph Node Dissection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

Funding was provided by grants from the McMaster Surgical Associates and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation: Ontario Chapter. Initial planning workshops were supported by funding from the Juravinski Cancer Centre. Mary Ann O’Brien was supported by Postdoctoral Fellowships from the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and Psychosocial Oncology Research Training Program. The funding sources played no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of this study. The authors thank Dana Reeson, Michele Marcinow, Amanda Ramsaroop, Lianne Lindsay, Tiffaney Kittmer, and Dyda Dao for assistance with data collection and management. They also thank Ji Cheng for assistance with calculating process control charts.

Disclosure

All authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2635–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, et al. Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care. 2001;39(8 Suppl 2):II2–45.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(6):iii–iv, 1–72.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Cont Educ Health Prof. 2006;26:13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Landercasper J, Ellis RL, Mathiason MA, et al. A community breast cancer report card determined by participation in the national quality measures for breast centers program. Breast J. 2010;16:472–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer NJ. Measuring the quality of surgical care: structure, process, or outcomes? J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198:626–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ko CY, Maggard M, Austin N. Quality in surgery: current issues for the future. World J Surg. 2005;29(10):1204–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maggard MA, McGorgy ML, Ko CY et al. Development of quality indicators: lessons learned in bariatric surgery. Am Surg. 2006;72:870–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaufman CA, Landercasper J. Can we measure the quality of breast surgical care? Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3053–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Society of Breast Surgeons Mastery Program. www.breast.surgeons.org/mastery/ (2011). Accessed 20 Sept 2013.
  12. 12.
    National Quality Measure for Breast Centers. www.nqmbc.org/ (2011). Accessed 20 Sept 2013.
  13. 13.
    National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers. www.accreditedbreastcenters.org/ (2011). Accessed 6 Nov 2012.
  14. 14.
    Clifford EJ, De vol EB, Pockaj BA, et al. Early results from a novel quality outcomes program: the American society of breast surgeons’ mastery of breast surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:S233–41.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olaya W, Bae W, Wong J, et al. Are percutaneous biopsy rates a reasonable quality measure in breast cancer management. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:S268–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kao LS, Lally KP, Thoma EJ, et al. Improving quality improvement: a methodologic framework for evaluating effectiveness of surgical quality improvement. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:621–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simunovic M, Baxter NN. Knowledge translation research: a review and new concepts from a surgical case study. Surgery. 2009;145:639–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, et al. Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15:433–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Walter A, et al. Changing physician’s behaviour; what works and thoughts on getting more things to work. J Cont Educ Health Prof. 2002;22:237–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Doumit G, Gattellari M, Grimshaw J, et al. Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(1):CD000125.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Brien MA, Freemantle N, Oxman AD, et al. Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(2):CD003030.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    O’Brien MA, Oxman AD, Davis DA, et al. Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD000409.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Breslin TM, Caughran J, Pettinga J, et al. Improving breast cancer care through a regional quality collaborative. Surgery. 2011;150:635–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clarke-Pearson EM, Jacobson AF, Boolbol SK, et al. Quality assurance initiative at one institution for minimally invasive breast biopsy as the initial diagnostic technique. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:75–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Veerbeek L, van der Geest L, Wouters M, et al. Enhancing the quality of care for patients with breast cancer: Seven years of experience with a Dutch auditing system. EJSO. 2011;37:714–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guadagnoli E, Soumerai S, Gurwitz JH, et al. Improving discussion of surgical treatment options for patients with breast cancer: local medical opinion leaders versus audit and performance feedback. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;61:171–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lovrics PJ, Hodgson N, O’Brien MA, et al. The implementation of a surgeon-directed quality improvement strategy in breast cancer surgery. Am J Surg. 2013 Nov 8. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F, et al. The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast conservation surgery for early stage breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2009;197:740–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hanley C, Kessaram R. Quality of diagnosis and surgical management of breast lesions in a community hospital: room for improvement? Can J Surg. 2006;49:185–92.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cheater F, Baker R, Gillies C, et al. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(3):CD005470.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine; 1967.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2006.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wheeler DJ, Chambers DS. Understanding statistical process control, 2nd edn. Knoxville: SPC Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Williams PM. Techniques for root cause analysis. BUMC Proc. 2001;14:154–7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Lovrics
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nicole Hodgson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mary Ann O’Brien
    • 4
  • Lehana Thabane
    • 3
    • 5
  • Sylvie Cornacchi
    • 1
  • Angela Coates
    • 1
  • Barbara Heller
    • 1
  • Susan Reid
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kenneth Sanders
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marko Simunovic
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Surgical OncologyHamilton Health Sciences and Juravinski Hospital and Cancer CentreHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.Department of Family and Community MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Biostatistics UnitSt. Joseph’s HealthcareHamiltonUSA

Personalised recommendations