Hospital-based multidisciplinary lung cancer care in Australia: a survey of the landscape in 2021

Development and Update of Guideline-based Quality Indicators in Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

In 2022, an update of the German lung cancer guideline, first published in 2010 and revised in 2018, was released. This article aims to show the process of updating, developing, and implementing guideline-based quality indicators (QI) into the certification system for lung cancer centers (LCC).

METHODS

A multidisciplinary and interprofessional working group revised the guideline QIs from 2018 using the strong recommendations of the guideline update, a systematic review for QIs, and the results of the implemented QIs from LCC.

RESULTS

For 4 out of 8 indicators from the 2018 guideline, the LCC showed an improved implementation of the requirements in the last 3 years (2018-2020). For 3 indicators, the median of the results was constant at a very high level (≥96% or 100%). Only the "adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy" indicator showed declining values between 2018 and 2020. The target values and plausibility limits were well achieved by LCC. After updating the guideline, one QI from 2018 was not included in the new QI set due to the small denominator population. Based on the new strong recommendations, 8 new QIs were defined. From the QI set of the guideline update, 13 of 15 indicators (7 since 2018 and 6 from 2022 on) were adopted into the certification program.

CONCLUSIONS

The guideline recommendations are implemented by LCC at a high level. The process presented confirms the successful implementation of the so-called quality cycle in oncology. The QIs developed by the German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO) are adopted by the certification program. The implementation of the QI is measured in LCC, evaluated by the German Cancer Society (DKG), and reflected back to the GGPO. The "real world" data have led to the deletion of one QI and show a high implementation of most QIs in LCC.

Improving the quality of patient care in lung cancer: key factors for successful multidisciplinary team working

International Guidelines as well as Cancer Associations recommend a multidisciplinary approach to lung cancer care. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) can significantly improve treatment decision-making and patient coordination by putting different physicians and other health professionals "in the same room", who collectively decide upon the best possible treatment. However, this is not a panacea for cancer treatment. The impact of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on patient outcomes is not univocal, while the effective functioning of the MDT depends on many factors. This review presents the available MDT literature with an emphasis on the key factors that characterize high-quality patient care in lung cancer. The study was conducted with a bibliographic search using different electronic databases (PubMed Central, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google) referring to multidisciplinary cancer care settings. Many key elements appear consolidated, while others emerge as prevalent and actual, especially those related to visible barriers which work across geographic, organizational, and disciplinary boundaries. MDTs must be sustained by strategic management, structured within the entity, and cannot be managed as a separate care process. Furthermore, they need to coordinate with other teams (within and outside the organization) and join with the broad range of services delivered by multiple providers at various points of the cancer journey or within the system, with the vision of integrated care.

The provision of general surgery in rural Australia: a narrative review

Rural surgery is most commonly provided by general surgeons to the 29% of people (7 million) living in rural Australia. The provision of rural general surgery to enable equitable and safe surgical care for rural Australians is a multifaceted issue concerning recruitment, training, retention, surgical procedures and surgical outcomes. Sustaining the rural general surgical workforce will be dependent upon growing an increased number of resident rural general surgeons, as well as changed models of care, with a need for ongoing review to track the outcomes of these changes. To increase recruitment, rural general surgical training must improve to be less stressful for trainees and to be incorporated alongside a rural-facing generalist curriculum. Rural general surgical outcomes (excluding some oncology conditions) achieve comparable results to metropolitan centres. Access to, and outcomes of, surgical oncology services continues to be inequitable for rural Australians and should be a major focus for improved service delivery.

International standards of care in thoracic oncology: A narrative review of clinical quality indicators

Unwarranted variations in lung cancer care are widely described. Clinical Quality Indicators (CQIs) enable the systematic identification and alleviation of variations in care and other evidence-practice gaps. The aim of this review was to describe and evaluate lung cancer CQIs utilised internationally, in order to provide a substrate for the development of Australasian lung cancer CQIs and future quality improvement initiatives. A literature search was performed to identify relevant publications; references were excluded if they did not explicitly define original lung cancer-specific quality indicators, or were review or opinion articles. Ultimately, 48 publications containing 661 individual CQIs were evaluated. Although almost all references were published in the last decade, CQIs did not always reflect contemporary standards of care. For example, there were just sixteen CQIs regarding biomarker profiling, eleven CQIs regarding multidisciplinary team review, and three clinical trial enrolment CQIs. Of 307 lung cancer treatment CQIs, almost half (137) pertain to surgical resection; a treatment option available to a minority of lung cancer patients. Consumer engagement during indicator development was uncommon. In conclusion, whilst CQIs are widely measured and reported, they are not always consistent with evidence-based practice, nor do they reliably support the holistic evaluation of the lung cancer care continuum. Moving forward, Australia and New Zealand must adopt a unified, evidence-based and patient-centred approach to drive meaningful improvements in practice.

Roles and practices of specialist lung cancer nurses: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review is to map the available literature on the role of specialist lung cancer nurses.

INTRODUCTION

The international literature acknowledges the importance of specialist cancer nurses who provide supportive care to patients. Historically, however, there has been a lack of consistent evidence to inform development and implementation of the role.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review will consider quantitative and qualitative studies of any design or methodology that report on role characteristics or behaviors, practices, or activities, or other aspects of specialist lung cancer nurses in the acute care setting. Systematic reviews, professional body reports, as well as unpublished or published studies and reports will also be considered for inclusion. Textual or opinion papers will be excluded.

METHODS

This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Relevant papers from 2006 to 2022, in any language, will be searched for in the following databases and registries: MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Websites to be searched will include the World Health Organization, International Council of Nurses, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest) and Grey Matters (CADTH) will be searched for unpublished literature. Results will be presented in tabular and narrative format and mapped according to the specified concepts of interest, as well as to the domains of practice for specialist nursing roles.

Contemporary Concise Review 2021: Pulmonary nodules from detection to intervention

The US Preventive Task Force (USPSTF) has updated screening criteria by expanding age range and reducing smoking history required for eligibility; the International Lung Screen Trial (ILST) data have shown that PLCOM2012 performs better for eligibility than USPSTF criteria. Screening adherence is low (4%-6% of potential eligible candidates in the United States) and depends upon multiple system and patient/candidate-related factors. Smoking cessation in lung cancer improves survival (past prospective trial data, updated meta-analysis data); smoking cessation is an essential component of lung cancer screening. Circulating biomarkers are emerging to optimize screening and early diagnosis. COVID-19 continues to affect lung cancer treatment and screening through delays and disruptions; specific operational challenges need to be met. Over 70% of suspected malignant lesions develop in the periphery of the lungs. Bronchoscopic navigational techniques have been steadily improving to allow greater accuracy with target lesion approximation and therefore diagnostic yield. Fibre-based imaging techniques provide real-time microscopic tumour visualization, with potential diagnostic benefits. With significant advances in peripheral lung cancer localization, bronchoscopically delivered ablative therapies are an emerging field in limited stage primary and oligometastatic disease. In advanced stage lung cancer, small-volume samples acquired through bronchoscopic techniques yield material of sufficient quantity and quality to support clinically relevant biomarker assessment.