Improving the quality of care and patient safety in oncology, the contribution of simulation-based training: A scoping review

Objective

Simulation-based training (SBT) is an effective educational method widely used in many clinical settings, including oncology. This study aimed to undertake a scoping review of research related to SBT in oncology to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of SBT in enhancing the skills of healthcare professionals and thereby improving the quality of care and patient safety in oncology.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review to map published studies in Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Peer-reviewed articles about data on the role of SBT in improving and enhancing the skills of healthcare professionals in oncology published in English and French from 2012 to 2022 were retrieved. Two researchers screened, extracted, and analyzed all identified studies independently.

Results

Of the 1,013 publications identified in the initial phase, 29 studies were included in the analysis. Twenty-five of these studies focused on non-technical skills, such as decision-making, communication, teamwork, and cognitive abilities. Thirteen studies focused on technical skills. The results of all included studies showed significant improvement in the skills of oncology healthcare professionals through SBT programs. Fourteen studies subjectively assessed the role of this educational tool, while nine objectively evaluated it. Six studies used a combined subjective and objective evaluation method.

Conclusions

SBT is a very effective tool for improving the skills of healthcare professionals in oncology. Supporting and promoting SBT is essential to providing high-quality care and ensuring patient safety in all areas of health care.

Evaluating Oncology Clinical Pathways: What Bar Are We Aiming for?

Oncology clinical pathways may result in cost savings, but we need more understanding about patient outcomes and reasons for nonadherence.

Improved guideline adherence in oncology through clinical decision-support systems: still hindered by current health IT infrastructures?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite several efforts to enhance guideline adherence in cancer management, the rate of adherence remains often dissatisfactory in clinical routine. Clinical decision-support systems (CDSS) have been developed to support the management of cancer patients by providing evidence-based recommendations. In this review, we focus on both current evidence supporting the beneficial effects of CDSS on guideline adherence as well as technical and structural requirements for CDSS implementation in clinical routine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Some studies have demonstrated a significant improvement of guideline adherence by CDSSs in oncologic diseases such as breast cancer, colon cancer, cervical cancer, prostate cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma as well as in the management of cancer pain. However, most of these studies were rather small and designs rather simple. One reason for this limited evidence might be that CDSSs are only occasionally implemented in clinical routine. The main limitations for a broader implementation might lie in the currently existing clinical data infrastructures that do not sufficiently allow CDSS interoperability as well as in some CDSS tools themselves, if handling is hampered by poor usability.

SUMMARY

In principle, CDSSs improve guideline adherence in clinical cancer management. However, there are some technical und structural obstacles to overcome to fully implement CDSSs in clinical routine.

The use of simulation-based education in cancer care: a scoping review protocol

Simulation-based education can be an effective strategy to educate nurses and physicians across the continuum of cancer care. However, there is still a lack of studies collating and synthesizing the literature around the types, functionalities and delivery systems of simulation-based education to educate different professional groups about cancer care.

To collate and synthesize the literature on how simulation has been used to educate nurses and physicians about cancer care.

Scoping review methodology according to the Joanna Briggs Institute framework. Published literature is going to be searched through Medline (OVID), CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Unpublished literature will be searched through ResearchGate, OpenGrey and open access theses and dissertations. Articles will be considered if the population is nurses (including nurse practitioners) and/or physicians, if they use any type of simulation as an educational strategy as the concept of interest, and if the context is cancer care. This review will consider experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, quantitative and qualitative studies designs, text and opinion papers and unpublished literature.

Results from this scoping review will generate a solid underpinning for nursing and medical community to empower evidenced innovation through the further development of simulation-based educational interventions.

Measuring and Improving Evidence-Based Patient Care Using a Web-Based Gamified Approach in Primary Care (QualityIQ): Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Unwarranted variability in clinical practice is a challenging problem in practice today, leading to poor outcomes for patients and low-value care for providers, payers, and patients.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we introduced a novel tool, QualityIQ, and determined the extent to which it helps primary care physicians to align care decisions with the latest best practices included in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS).

METHODS

We developed the fully automated QualityIQ patient simulation platform with real-time evidence-based feedback and gamified peer benchmarking. Each case included workup, diagnosis, and management questions with explicit evidence-based scoring criteria. We recruited practicing primary care physicians across the United States into the study via the web and conducted a cross-sectional study of clinical decisions among a national sample of primary care physicians, randomized to continuing medical education (CME) and non-CME study arms. Physicians "cared" for 8 weekly cases that covered typical primary care scenarios. We measured participation rates, changes in quality scores (including MIPS scores), self-reported practice change, and physician satisfaction with the tool. The primary outcomes for this study were evidence-based care scores within each case, adherence to MIPS measures, and variation in clinical decision-making among the primary care providers caring for the same patient.

RESULTS

We found strong, scalable engagement with the tool, with 75% of participants (61 non-CME and 59 CME) completing at least 6 of 8 total cases. We saw significant improvement in evidence-based clinical decisions across multiple conditions, such as diabetes (+8.3%, P<.001) and osteoarthritis (+7.6%, P=.003) and with MIPS-related quality measures, such as diabetes eye examinations (+22%, P<.001), depression screening (+11%, P<.001), and asthma medications (+33%, P<.001). Although the CME availability did not increase enrollment in the study, participants who were offered CME credits were more likely to complete at least 6 of the 8 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CME availability did not prove to be important, the short, clinically detailed case simulations with real-time feedback and gamified peer benchmarking did lead to significant improvements in evidence-based care decisions among all practicing physicians.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03800901; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03800901.

Factors impacting the time to ovarian cancer diagnosis based on classic symptom presentation in the United States

BACKGROUND

Patients with ovarian cancer often present with late-stage disease and nonspecific symptoms, but little is known about factors affecting the time to diagnosis (TTD) in the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective, population-based study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was conducted. It included women 66 years old or older with stage II to IV epithelial ovarian cancer with at least 1 code for abdominal/pelvic pain, bloating, difficulty eating, or urinary symptoms within 1 year of the cancer diagnosis. TTD was defined from the first claim with a prespecified symptom to the ovarian cancer diagnosis. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess for differences in TTD by group medians. Univariate and generalized linear models with a log-link function evaluated TTD by covariables.

RESULTS

For the 13,872 women analyzed, the mean and median times to diagnosis were 2.9 and 1.1 months, respectively. The median TTD differed significantly by first symptom (P < .001), number of symptoms (P < .001), and first physician specialty seen (P < .001). In a multivariable analysis, TTD differed significantly according to race/ethnicity (P < .001), geographic region (P = .001), urban-rural location (P = .031), emergency room presentation (P < .001), and number of specialties seen (P < .001). A shorter TTD was associated with a diagnosis in 2006-2010 (relative risk [RR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.98) or 2011-2015 (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.93) in comparison with 1992-1999.

CONCLUSIONS

The time from a symptomatic presentation to care to a diagnosis of ovarian cancer is influenced by clinical and demographic variables. This study's findings reinforce the importance of educating all physicians on ovarian cancer symptoms to aid in diagnosis.

LAY SUMMARY

Ovarian cancer is often diagnosed once disease has spread because the classic symptoms of ovarian cancer-abdominal or pelvic pain, bloating, difficulty eating, and urinary issues-can be mistaken for other problems. This study examined the time between when women with classic ovarian cancer symptoms went to a physician and when they received a cancer diagnosis in a large database population. The authors found that the time to diagnosis differed according to the type and number of symptoms and what type of physician a woman saw as well as factors such as race, geographic location, and year of diagnosis.

Early Findings on the Use of Clinical Pathways for Management of Unwarranted Variation in Cancer Care

Clinical pathways have the potential to improve complex clinical decision-making in cancer care. The authors implemented pathways with customized content to assist oncologists to select treatments, aiming for an on-pathway rate of 70%-85%. Treatment decisions were captured as on or off pathway, and metrics were shared monthly with users. Oncologists were categorized into quintiles based on on-pathway performance during the first 90 days of use. On-pathway rates were then calculated for days 91-360 (N = 121). Median on-pathway quintile rates varied from 50% to 100% in the initial 90-day period. During follow-up, median on-pathway rates shifted into the prespecified goal range for all groups. Clinical pathways resulted in greater uniformity in medical oncology practice. Monthly feedback about usage, familiarity with the electronic platform, and regular content updates are some factors that may influence on-pathway rates. Clinical pathways hold promise to manage unwarranted variation in cancer care.

Mapping of Current Obstacles for Rationalizing Use of Medicines (CORUM) in Europe: Current Situation and Potential Solutions

Introduction

There are increasing concerns regarding the inappropriate use of medicines with expenditure continuing to grow driven by increasing sales in oncology and orphan diseases, enhanced by their emotive nature. As a result, even high income countries are struggling to fund new premium priced medicines. These concerns have resulted in initiatives to better manage the entry of new medicines and enhance the rational use of medicines (RUM). However, there is a need to ascertain the current situation. We sought to address this by developing the Current Obstacles for Rationalizing Use of Medicines in Europe (CORUM) mapping tool to qualitatively investigate the current situation and provide analysis of current views on RUM and interventions among key European payers and their advisers. The findings will be used to provide future guidance.

Methodology

Descriptive study exploring and identifying perceived gaps to achieving optimal RUM. The CORUM tool was based on the WHO 12 key interventions to promote RUM.

Results

62 participants took part with most respondents believing their country could improve RUM capacity. This included educational initiatives on the use of clinical guidelines (90%) and the inclusion of problem-based pharmacotherapy in undergraduate curricula and for Continued Professional Development. Key challenges included a lack of regular updates of guidelines, exacerbated by limited funding and a lack of follow-up to monitor adherence to agreed guidelines. RUM could also be enhanced by the development of regional formularies as well as implementing Drug and Therapeutic Committees where these are currently limited. There also needs to be greater co-ordination between RUM and Health Technology Assessment activities, with countries learning from each other.

Conclusion

There is an urgent need to improve RUM through improved educational and other activities among European countries, with countries learning from each other. This will involve addressing current challenges and we will be following this up.