Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Expert Testicular Cancer Tumor Board Across a Large Integrated Healthcare Delivery System Via Early Case Ascertainment

The implementation checklist: A pragmatic instrument for accelerating research-to-implementation cycles

Introduction

Learning health systems require rapid-cycle research and nimble implementation processes to maximize innovation across disparate specialties and operations. Existing detailed research-to-implementation frameworks require extensive time commitments and can be overwhelming for physician-researchers with clinical and operational responsibilities, inhibiting their widespread adoption. The creation of a short, pragmatic checklist to inform implementation processes may substantially improve uptake and implementation efficiency across a variety of health systems.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of existing implementation frameworks to identify core concepts. Utilizing comprehensive stakeholder engagement with 25 operational leaders, embedded physician-researchers, and delivery scientists, concepts were iteratively integrated to create and implement a final concise instrument.

Results

A systematic review identified 894 publications describing implementation frameworks, which included 15 systematic reviews. Among these, domains were extracted from three commonly utilized instruments: the Quality Implementation Framework (QIF), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Iterative testing and stakeholder engagement revision of a four-page draft implementation document with five domains resulted in a concise, one-page implementation planning instrument to be used at project outset and periodically throughout project implementation planning. The instrument addresses end-user feasibility concerns while retaining the main goals of more complex tools. This instrument was then systematically integrated into projects within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Delivery Science and Applied Research program to address stakeholder engagement, efficiency, project planning, and operational implementation of study results.

Conclusion

A streamlined one-page implementation planning instrument, incorporating core concepts of existing frameworks, provides a pragmatic, robust framework for evidence-based healthcare innovation cycles that is being broadly implemented within a learning health system. These streamlined processes could inform other settings needing a best practice rapid-cycle research-to-implementation tool for large numbers of diverse projects.

Pros and cons of streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems to future-proof oncological multidisciplinary team meetings

Introduction

Nowadays nearly every patient with cancer is discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) to determine an optimal treatment plan. The growth in the number of patients to be discussed is unsustainable. Streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are two major ways to restructure MDTMs. Streamlining is the process of selecting the patients who need to be discussed and in which type of MDTM. Using CCDSSs, patient data is automatically loaded into the minutes and a guideline-based treatment proposal is generated. We aimed to identify the pros and cons of streamlining and CCDSSs.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch MDTM participants. With purposive sampling we maximised variation in participants' characteristics. Interview data were thematically analysed.

Results

Thirty-five interviews were analysed. All interviewees agreed on the need to change the current MDTM workflow. Streamlining suggestions were thematised based on standard and complex cases and the location of the MDTM (i.e. local, regional or nationwide). Interviewees suggested easing the pressure on MDTMs by discussing standard cases briefly, not at all, or outside the MDTM with only two to three specialists. Complex cases should be discussed in tumour-type-specific regional MDTMs and highly complex cases by regional/nationwide expert teams. Categorizing patients as standard or complex was found to be the greatest challenge of streamlining. CCDSSs were recognised as promising, although none of the interviewees had made use of them. The assumed advantage was their capacity to generate protocolised treatment proposals based on automatically uploaded patient data, to unify treatment proposals and to facilitate research. However, they were thought to limit the freedom to deviate from the treatment advice.

Conclusion

To make oncological MDTMs sustainable, methods of streamlining should be developed and introduced. Physicians still have doubts about the value of CCDSSs.

Improving Time to Molecular Testing Results in Patients With Newly Diagnosed, Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a crucial component of evaluation of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to determine appropriate first-line treatment. This quality improvement project aimed to reduce time to NGS results in patients with metastatic NSCLC.

METHODS

We reviewed electronic medical records of patients with newly diagnosed, untreated metastatic NSCLC from December 2018 to August 2021 and determined the number of days from pathologic diagnosis to NGS results. We reviewed process maps for oncology, pathology, the Division of Research, and a NGS vendor to determine factors leading to preventable delays. Since November 2020, we created an automated, electronic weekly report to provide earlier identification of new pathologic diagnoses in patients with metastatic NSCLC. On June 2021, we worked with our NGS vendors to expand days of the week to accept specimens.

RESULTS

Our interventions reduced the median time from pathologic diagnosis to NGS results from 24 (standard deviation [SD] 9) to 16 (SD 6) days. The median time from biopsy results to NGS order was reduced from 7 days to 1 day. The time from the specimen being sent from pathology to the NGS vendor was a median of 6 days in both cohorts. The total time from pathologic diagnosis to appropriate treatment was reduced from 33 (SD 18) to 22 (SD 8) days.

CONCLUSION

NGS processing in a community setting can be complex. Using a systems focused approach to quality improvement is crucial in identifying the greatest barriers in an organization. We found that delays in time to NGS results can be reduced by improved communication and workflows among departments.

Management of stage I testicular cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Testicular cancer is the most common solid malignancy amongst young men, and a large proportion present with stage I disease. The options for management following radical orchiectomy are multifold. We review here approaches to treatment in this setting, providing an update on recent publications.

RECENT FINDINGS

At Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, we maintain a nonrisk adapted active surveillance approach. With a dedicated surveillance program using low-dose computed tomography imaging, patients are appropriately identified early for treatment on relapse. There are ongoing investigations into minimizing toxicities of treatments for relapse, and in particular, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) presents an attractive alternative. This, though, remains investigational in the setting of seminoma.

SUMMARY

Testicular cancer is a highly curable malignancy. In stage I disease, an active surveillance approach following radical orchiectomy is preferred, irrespective of risk-profile. This approach serves to limit the toxicity of adjuvant treatment in a significant proportion of patients, while maintaining excellent survival outcomes.