Reference Citation Analysis: Find an Article, Find a Category, Find a Journal, Find a Scholar

For: van Zelm R, Janssen I, Vanhaecht K, de Buck van Overstraeten A, Panella M, Sermeus W, Coeckelberghs E. Development of a model care pathway for adults undergoing colorectal cancer surgery: Evidence-based key interventions and indicators. J Eval Clin Pract 2018;24:232-239. [PMID: 28145019 DOI: 10.1111/jep.12700] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2016] [Revised: 12/13/2016] [Accepted: 12/14/2016] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]

For:	van Zelm R, Janssen I, Vanhaecht K, de Buck van Overstraeten A, Panella M, Sermeus W, Coeckelberghs E. Development of a model care pathway for adults undergoing colorectal cancer surgery: Evidence-based key interventions and indicators. J Eval Clin Pract 2018;24:232-239. [PMID: 28145019 DOI: 10.1111/jep.12700] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2016] [Revised: 12/13/2016] [Accepted: 12/14/2016] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]

Number

Cited by Other Article(s)

Ke JXC, Sparrow K, Smith MA, Yoo KM, Yee MS, Sun LY, Beattie WS, Lim E, Görges M, Canadian Perioperative Anesthesia Clinical Trials (PACT) Group. Metrics to assess the quality of anesthesia, perioperative care, and acute pain management in Canada: a scoping review. Can J Anaesth 2025;72:822-854. [PMID: 40394410 DOI: 10.1007/s12630-025-02943-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2024] [Revised: 10/29/2024] [Accepted: 10/29/2024] [Indexed: 05/22/2025] Open

Abstract

PURPOSE

The aim of this scoping review was to consolidate a list of metrics that can be used to measure quality in anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, and acute pain management in Canada.

METHODS

We included English-language full-text articles involving metrics (including patient-reported outcome and patient-reported experience measures, quality and safety indicators, and practice standards) for adults aged 18 yr and older undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery requiring an anesthesiologist. We searched MEDLINE®, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science™, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and grey literature to find articles on the topic from January 2015 to March 2022. In addition, we contacted 64 Canadian hospitals for existing anesthesia quality assurance and improvement metrics; they responded from June to October 2022. Two independent reviewers performed screening and data extraction. We grouped and condensed similar candidate metrics using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We assessed 4,493 publications, of which 63 met the inclusion criteria. We extracted 662 candidate metrics and consolidated them into 94 distinct metrics. Metrics reflected themes of perioperative management (n = 47), safety and standards (n = 23), patient-centredness (n = 11), intraoperative anesthetic care (n = 5), perioperative team leadership (n = 4), and efficiency (n = 4). Metrics spanned all quality-of-care categories (process, outcome, and structure) and perioperative phases but were limited by poor supporting evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

We consolidated a list of 94 metrics that can be used to evaluate the quality of anesthesia care. Further work will require verification of feasibility and validity prior to adoption, with operationalization of these metrics into practical indicators that are measurable and comparable.

Collapse

Coeckelberghs E, Chaoui AM, Abasbassi M, Bislenghi G, Boon K, Goethals M, Hendrickx T, Houben B, Krick M, Meekers F, Pattyn P, Pletinckx P, Seys D, Stijns J, Van den Broeck S, Van Geluwe B, Pirenne Y, Wolthuis AM, Vanhaecht K, D'Hoore A. Ventral mesh rectopexy: Variations in technique and care process. A multicentre study. Colorectal Dis 2025;27:e70084. [PMID: 40195060 DOI: 10.1111/codi.70084] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2024] [Revised: 12/29/2024] [Accepted: 02/11/2025] [Indexed: 04/09/2025]

Abstract

AIM

The aim of this improvement collaborative is to explore the variation in care within and between Flemish hospitals in preoperative assessment, surgical indications, perioperative management and surgical technique for ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR).

METHOD

This observational, cross-sectional multicentre study was performed in 14 Flemish hospitals. Twenty consecutive patients per hospital undergoing primary VMR in 2022 were included. Quality of care was assessed via predefined perioperative disease-specific quality indicators (QIs) by means of structured questionnaires. Data were collected from electronic patient files.

RESULTS

A total of 280 patients were included. All patients were female and their mean age was 62 ± 14 years. Significant intra- and interhospital variation was observed in preoperative work-up, indications, operative technique and postoperative management. Total rectal prolapse was the indication for VMR in only 17.5% of the patients. The surgical approach was minimally invasive in all cases, with 40% via a robotic and 60% a laparoscopic approach. Fifteen per cent of patients had mechanical bowel preparation. All centres used a synthetic polypropylene mesh to perform a VMR, and in 85.6% (n = 238) of all patients a lightweight mesh was used. Diverging practices were noted as to type of mesh fixation to the rectum. In one third of patients a nonresorbable suture was combined with biological glue (n = 89, 31.8%). The overall mean length of stay was 2.1 (± 2.7) days. Only 3% of the procedures were performed as same day discharge, 47% of the patients remained for 1 day and 50% for ≥2 days. Only four patients were readmitted within 30 days after surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study shows a significant variation in the perioperative management and surgical technique for VMR between hospitals, ongoing controversies and a lack of standardization. This collaborative can serve as a structured feedback tool to define minimum QIs and minimum outcome reporting parameters. Consensus building and adherence to evidence-based guidelines should reduce variation in care processes and lead to improved patient outcomes.

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Ellen Coeckelberghs Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Ahmed M Chaoui Department of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Mohamed Abasbassi Department of Abdominal Surgery, AZ Oostende, Ostend, Belgium
Gabriele Bislenghi Department of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Katrien Boon Department of General Surgery, Noorderhart, Overpelt, Belgium
Michel Goethals Department of Abdominal Surgery, St-Elisabeth Hospital, Zottegem, Belgium
Tom Hendrickx Department of General and Abdominal Surgery, Hospital AZ Turnhout, Turnhout, Belgium
Bert Houben Department of Abdominal Surgery, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium
Marc Krick Department of Abdominal Surgery, OLV Hospitals, Aalst, Asse, Ninove, Belgium
Frederic Meekers Department of Adbominal Surgery, AZ Diest, Diest, Belgium
Paul Pattyn Department of Adbominal Surgery, AZ Delta, Roeselare, Belgium
Pieter Pletinckx Department of Surgery, Maria Middelares Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
Deborah Seys Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Jasper Stijns Department of Surgery, University Hospital Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
Sylvie Van den Broeck Department of Abdominal, Pediatric and Reconstructive Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium Antwerp ReSURG, Anatomy and Research Centre (ASTARC), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Bart Van Geluwe Department of Abdominal Surgery, AZ Groeninge, Kortijk, Belgium
Yves Pirenne Department of Abdominal Surgery, ZAS, Antwerp, Belgium
Albert M Wolthuis Department of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Kris Vanhaecht Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
André D'Hoore Department of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Collapse

Nguyen F, Liao G, McIsaac DI, Lalu MM, Pysyk CL, Hamilton GM. Perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery: an umbrella review. Can J Anaesth 2024;71:274-291. [PMID: 38182828 DOI: 10.1007/s12630-023-02671-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2023] [Revised: 10/03/2023] [Accepted: 10/05/2023] [Indexed: 01/07/2024] Open

Abstract

PURPOSE

Improvement in delivery of perioperative care depends on the ability to measure outcomes that can direct meaningful changes in practice. We sought to identify and provide an overview of perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery.

SOURCE

We conducted an umbrella review (a systematic review of systematic reviews) according to Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We included systematic reviews examining perioperative indicators in patients ≥ 18 yr of age undergoing noncardiac surgery. Our primary outcome was any quality indicator specific to anesthesia. Indicators were classified by the Donabedian system and perioperative phase of care. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2 criteria. Level of evidence of quality indicators was stratified by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Classification.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Our search returned 1,475 studies. After removing duplicates and screening of abstracts and full texts, 23 systematic reviews encompassing 3,164 primary studies met our inclusion criteria. There were 330 unique quality indicators. Process indicators were most common (n = 169), followed by outcome (n = 114) and structure indicators (n = 47). Few identified indicators were supported by high-level evidence (45/330, 14%). Level 1 evidence supported indicators of antibiotic prophylaxis (1a), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (1a), postoperative nausea/vomiting prophylaxis (1b), maintenance of normothermia (1a), and goal-directed fluid therapy (1b).

CONCLUSION

This umbrella review highlights the scarcity of perioperative quality indicators that are supported by high quality evidence. Future development of quality indicators and recommendations for outcome measurement should focus on metrics that are supported by level 1 evidence. Potential targets for evidence-based quality-improvement programs in anesthesia are identified herein.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020164691); first registered 28 April 2020.

Collapse

Kenis I, Van Hecke A, Foulon V. The cocreation of care pathways for patients treated with oral anticancer drugs: From assessment data to an actual care pathway. J Eval Clin Pract 2023;29:1354-1362. [PMID: 36949720 DOI: 10.1111/jep.13840] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2023] [Revised: 02/23/2023] [Accepted: 03/09/2023] [Indexed: 03/24/2023]

Abstract

RATIONALE

Due to the emergence of oral anticancer therapies, existing care processes in oncology - that are mainly focused on in-hospital treatments - must be rethought. The development of a care pathway is a well-known methodology to reorganise and standardise care for a specific patient group. However, care pathway development might be complex and burdensome for healthcare teams, requiring a well-thought-out methodology that provides guidance to the teams.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

In 10 Belgian oncology departments, multidisciplinary teams developed a tailored care pathway, aimed to offer high-quality patient-centred care. Each department followed a cocreation methodology, consisting of a current practice assessment, a priority setting, and the actual development of the care pathway. The aim of this study was to investigate how and to which extent underperformed evidence-based key elements (KEs), identified in the current practice assessment, guided the development of the care pathway, and how compliant the final care pathways are with the list of evidence-based KEs.

METHODS

A qualitative content analysis was conducted to describe and compare the results of each phase of the cocreation methodology.

RESULTS

This study shows that much of the evidence and feedback on current practice that was used as a starting point, got lost throughout the cocreation process. Only a limited proportion of the (seriously) underperformed KEs were prioritised by the multidisciplinary teams. Furthermore, several prioritised KEs could not be retrieved in the care pathway documents. Also, the final care pathways were not fully compliant with existing evidence.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings, a more rigorous cocreation methodology seems needed, offering very concrete support for multidisciplinary teams to integrate the prioritised KEs in the care process (e.g., by using a model care pathway). Next to the selfreported performance data from healthcare professionals and patients, more objective data (e.g., walkthrough, medical records) and more extensive patient involvement should be considered in the priority setting.

Collapse

Latina R, Salomone K, D’Angelo D, Coclite D, Castellini G, Gianola S, Fauci A, Napoletano A, Iacorossi L, Iannone P. Towards a New System for the Assessment of the Quality in Care Pathways: An Overview of Systematic Reviews. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2020;17:ijerph17228634. [PMID: 33233824 PMCID: PMC7699889 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17228634] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2020] [Revised: 11/16/2020] [Accepted: 11/18/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]

Abstract

Clinical or care pathways are developed by a multidisciplinary team of healthcare practitioners, based on clinical evidence, and standardized processes. The evaluation of their framework/content quality is unclear. The aim of this study was to describe which tools and domains are able to critically evaluate the quality of clinical/care pathways. An overview of systematic reviews was conducted, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, using Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library, from 2015 to 2020, and with snowballing methods. The quality of the reviews was assessed with Assessment the Methodology of Systematic Review (AMSTAR-2) and categorized with The Leuven Clinical Pathway Compass for the definition of the five domains: processes, service, clinical, team, and financial. We found nine reviews. Three achieved a high level of quality with AMSTAR-2. The areas classified according to The Leuven Clinical Pathway Compass were: 9.7% team multidisciplinary involvement, 13.2% clinical (morbidity/mortality), 44.3% process (continuity-clinical integration, transitional), 5.6% financial (length of stay), and 27.0% service (patient-/family-centered care). Overall, none of the 300 instruments retrieved could be considered a gold standard mainly because they did not cover all the critical pathway domains outlined by Leuven and Health Technology Assessment. This overview shows important insights for the definition of a multiprinciple framework of core domains for assessing the quality of pathways. The core domains should consider general critical aspects common to all pathways, but it is necessary to define specific domains for specific diseases, fast pathways, and adapting the tool to the cultural and organizational characteristics of the health system of each country.

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Roberto Latina National Center for Clinical Excellence, Healthcare Quality and Safety, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (K.S.); (D.D.); (D.C.); (A.F.); (A.N.); (P.I.)
Katia Salomone National Center for Clinical Excellence, Healthcare Quality and Safety, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (K.S.); (D.D.); (D.C.); (A.F.); (A.N.); (P.I.)
Daniela D’Angelo National Center for Clinical Excellence, Healthcare Quality and Safety, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (K.S.); (D.D.); (D.C.); (A.F.); (A.N.); (P.I.)
Daniela Coclite National Center for Clinical Excellence, Healthcare Quality and Safety, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (K.S.); (D.D.); (D.C.); (A.F.); (A.N.); (P.I.)
Greta Castellini Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, 20161 Milan, Italy; (G.C.); (S.G.)
Silvia Gianola Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, 20161 Milan, Italy; (G.C.); (S.G.)
Alice Fauci National Center for Clinical Excellence, Healthcare Quality and Safety, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (K.S.); (D.D.); (D.C.); (A.F.); (A.N.); (P.I.)
Antonello Napoletano National Center for Clinical Excellence, Healthcare Quality and Safety, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (K.S.); (D.D.); (D.C.); (A.F.); (A.N.); (P.I.)
Laura Iacorossi National Center for Clinical Excellence, Healthcare Quality and Safety, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (K.S.); (D.D.); (D.C.); (A.F.); (A.N.); (P.I.) Correspondence:
Primiano Iannone National Center for Clinical Excellence, Healthcare Quality and Safety, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00162 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (K.S.); (D.D.); (D.C.); (A.F.); (A.N.); (P.I.)

Collapse

Daghash H, Lim Abdullah K, Ismail MD. The effect of acute coronary syndrome care pathways on in-hospital patients: A systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract 2020;26:1280-1291. [PMID: 31489762 DOI: 10.1111/jep.13280] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2019] [Revised: 07/31/2019] [Accepted: 08/21/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Health care institutions need to construct management strategies for patients diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) that focus on evidence-based treatments, adherence to treatment guidelines, and organized care. These help to reduce variations as well as the mortality and morbidity rates, which indicates the critical need for standardized care and adherence to evidence-based practices for patients hospitalized with ACS. The care pathways translate research and guidelines into clinical practice to close the gap between the guidelines and the clinical practices.

OBJECTIVES

This review focuses on identifying the indicators used to evaluate ACS care pathways and their effect on the care process and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This review follows the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The systematic research was conducted using five research databases. Two groups were created by dividing the studies according to their year of publication. The first group included those studies published from 1997 to 2007 ("Group 1"), while the second included those published from 2008 to 2018 ("Group 2"). Selected studies were screened using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included in this review. One study was a randomized controlled trial, 14 were predesigns and postdesigns, and two were longitudinal observational designs. The Group 1 studies demonstrated that ACS care pathways had a positive effect on reducing the length of the hospital stay and the door-to-balloon times. Similar effects were observed for the Group 2 studies.

CONCLUSION

Implementing ACS care pathway helps to organize care processes and decrease treatment delays as well as improve the patient outcomes without adverse consequences for patients or additional resources and costs. While the current level of evidence is inadequate to warrant a formal recommendation, there is a need for more studies with an emphasis on well-designed randomization to measure patient outcomes.

Collapse

Cao LX, Chen ZQ, Jiang Z, Chen QC, Fan XH, Xia SJ, Lin JX, Gan HC, Wang T, Huang YX. Rapid rehabilitation technique with integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine promotes postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery. World J Gastroenterol 2020;26:3271-3282. [PMID: 32684741 PMCID: PMC7336322 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i23.3271] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2020] [Revised: 05/09/2020] [Accepted: 05/29/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open

Abstract

BACKGROUND

During the perioperative period, the characteristic therapy of traditional Chinese medicine is effective in improving postoperative rehabilitation. In large-scale hospitals practicing traditional Chinese medicine, there is accumulating experience related to the promotion of fast recovery in the perioperative period.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Yikou-Sizi powder hot compress on Shenque acupuncture point combined with rapid rehabilitation technique.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study included two groups: Treatment group and control group. The patients in the treatment group and control group received Yikou-Sizi powder hot compress on Shenque acupuncture point combined with rapid rehabilitation technique and routine treatment, respectively. Clinical observation regarding postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function was performed, including the times to first passage of flatus, first defecation, and first normal bowel sounds. The comparison between groups was conducted through descriptive analysis, χ 2, t, F, and rank-sum tests.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference in the time to postoperative first defecation between the treatment and control group (87.16 ± 32.09 vs 109.79 ± 40.25 h, respectively; P < 0.05). Similarly, the time to initial recovery of bowel sounds in the treatment group was significantly shorter than that in the control group (61.17 ± 26.75 vs 79.19 ± 33.35 h, respectively; P < 0.05). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the time to initial exhaust between the treatment and control groups (51.54 ± 23.66 vs 62.24 ± 25.95 h, respectively; P > 0.05). The hospitalization expenses for the two groups of patients were 62283.45 ± 12413.90 and 62059.42 ± 11350.51 yuan, respectively. Although the cost of hospitalization was decreased in the control group, the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). This clinical trial was safe without reports of any adverse reaction or event.

CONCLUSION

The rapid rehabilitation technique with integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine promotes the recovery of postoperative gastrointestinal function and is significantly better than standard approach for patients after colorectal surgery.

Collapse

Zheng Y, Wang L, Wu F, Rong W, Liu Y, Zhang K, Wu J. Enhanced recovery after surgery strategy for cirrhosis patients undergoing hepatectomy: experience in a single research center. Ann Surg Treat Res 2020;98:224-234. [PMID: 32411627 PMCID: PMC7200602 DOI: 10.4174/astr.2020.98.5.224] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2019] [Revised: 01/06/2020] [Accepted: 02/13/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open

Protocol for process evaluation of evidence-based care pathways: the case of colorectal cancer surgery. INT J EVID-BASED HEA 2019;16:145-153. [PMID: 30095534 DOI: 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000149] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Care pathways are complex interventions, consisting of multiple 'active ingredients', to structure care processes around patient needs. Numerous studies have reported improved outcomes after implementation of care pathways. The structure-process-outcome framework and the context-mechanism-outcome framework both suggest that outcomes can only be achieved through a certain process within a context or structure. To understand how and why care pathways are effective, understanding of both this process and context is necessary. The aim of this article is to propose a study protocol to evaluate the implementation process of evidence-based care pathways, including the influence of the context. This protocol is explained by applying it to the implementation of a colorectal cancer surgery pathway in an international setting.

METHODS

The Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on process evaluations for complex interventions is used as the basis for the protocol. The key components of process evaluation are intervention, context, implementation, mechanisms of impact and outcomes. In process evaluations, these components are studied using quantitative and qualitative methods. Among them are patient record analysis, questionnaires, on-site visits and interviews.

DISCUSSION

To guide our methodological choices, the MRC guidance for process evaluations of complex interventions, and published protocols for process evaluations of complex interventions were used. Our protocol is now tailored for the process evaluation of evidence-based care pathways and provides researchers and clinicians methods and tools, as well as a worked example, that can be used to study the process of care pathway implementation. As a result, healthcare professionals will be informed on context factors and implementation processes that can facilitate the implementation of care pathways, improving quality and effectiveness of care processes.

Collapse

van Zelm R, Coeckelberghs E, Sermeus W, De Buck van Overstraeten A, Weimann A, Seys D, Panella M, Vanhaecht K. Variation in care for surgical patients with colorectal cancer: protocol adherence in 12 European hospitals. Int J Colorectal Dis 2017;32:1471-1478. [PMID: 28717841 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-017-2863-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/07/2017] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]