Optimal cancer care pathways - the ideal versus reality for patient-centric cancer care during COVID-19.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Shanuka Samaranayake, Daniel Barker, Apsara Windsor
{"title":"Optimal cancer care pathways - the ideal versus reality for patient-centric cancer care during COVID-19.","authors":"Shanuka Samaranayake,&nbsp;Daniel Barker,&nbsp;Apsara Windsor","doi":"10.1071/AH23060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objectives To assess whether compliance with the nationally endorsed Optimal Care Pathways is evident in 75% of patients treated with curative intent treatment and if this compliance was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (hereinafter COVID-19). Methods This retrospective study included patients undergoing curative treatment with radiotherapy in head and neck (HN), breast, lung and gastrointestinal malignancies between January 2019 and June 2021 in a single NSW outer metropolitan cancer service. For care delivered within the remit of cancer services, the primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients whose treatment complied with the Optimal Care Pathways recommended time frame. Secondary outcome measures included evaluating the effect of COVID-19 on the proportion of patients being treated within the recommended time frame. Results There were n  = 733 eligible patients across the five tumour streams with the majority being breast cancer patients comprising 65% (n  = 479) of the cohort, followed by HN cancer patients (n  = 125, 17%). None of the tumour subsites abided by the 75% compliance rate. Oesophageal cancer patients had the lowest compliance rate of 4% (P  < 0.001), with a similarly low compliance rate for rectal cancer patients at 33% (P  = 0.002). None of the hypothesis tests to assess for detriment in treatment time during COVID-19 were statistically significant (P  > 0.05). Conclusion Despite the availability of best practice guidelines, there is limited compliance throughout all cancer subtypes, which has not been negatively influenced by COVID-19. Improved awareness of the Optimal Care Pathways, and implementation of the associated infrastructure and systems, are required to support compliance.</p>","PeriodicalId":55425,"journal":{"name":"Australian Health Review","volume":"47 4","pages":"472-479"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Health Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH23060","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives To assess whether compliance with the nationally endorsed Optimal Care Pathways is evident in 75% of patients treated with curative intent treatment and if this compliance was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (hereinafter COVID-19). Methods This retrospective study included patients undergoing curative treatment with radiotherapy in head and neck (HN), breast, lung and gastrointestinal malignancies between January 2019 and June 2021 in a single NSW outer metropolitan cancer service. For care delivered within the remit of cancer services, the primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients whose treatment complied with the Optimal Care Pathways recommended time frame. Secondary outcome measures included evaluating the effect of COVID-19 on the proportion of patients being treated within the recommended time frame. Results There were n  = 733 eligible patients across the five tumour streams with the majority being breast cancer patients comprising 65% (n  = 479) of the cohort, followed by HN cancer patients (n  = 125, 17%). None of the tumour subsites abided by the 75% compliance rate. Oesophageal cancer patients had the lowest compliance rate of 4% (P  < 0.001), with a similarly low compliance rate for rectal cancer patients at 33% (P  = 0.002). None of the hypothesis tests to assess for detriment in treatment time during COVID-19 were statistically significant (P  > 0.05). Conclusion Despite the availability of best practice guidelines, there is limited compliance throughout all cancer subtypes, which has not been negatively influenced by COVID-19. Improved awareness of the Optimal Care Pathways, and implementation of the associated infrastructure and systems, are required to support compliance.

最佳癌症治疗途径——COVID-19期间以患者为中心的癌症治疗的理想与现实
目的评估75%接受治愈意图治疗的患者是否明显遵守国家认可的最佳护理途径,以及这种依从性是否受到COVID-19大流行(以下简称COVID-19)的影响。方法:本回顾性研究包括2019年1月至2021年6月在新南威尔士州外大都会癌症服务中心接受头颈部(HN)、乳房、肺部和胃肠道恶性肿瘤放疗治疗的患者。对于在癌症服务范围内提供的护理,主要结果衡量指标是符合最佳护理途径推荐时间框架的治疗患者比例。次要结局指标包括评估COVID-19对在推荐时间框架内接受治疗的患者比例的影响。结果在5个肿瘤流中有n = 733例符合条件的患者,其中大多数是乳腺癌患者,占队列的65% (n = 479),其次是HN癌症患者(n = 125, 17%)。所有肿瘤亚位点均未达到75%的依从率。食管癌患者的依从率最低,为4% (P < 0.05)。结论:尽管有最佳实践指南,但所有癌症亚型的依从性有限,并未受到COVID-19的负面影响。需要提高对最佳护理途径的认识,并实施相关的基础设施和系统,以支持依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Australian Health Review
Australian Health Review 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
134
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Health Review is an international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes contributions on all aspects of health policy, management and governance; healthcare delivery systems; workforce; health financing; and other matters of interest to those working in health care. In addition to analyses and commentary, the journal publishes original research from practitioners – managers and clinicians – and reports of breakthrough projects that demonstrate better ways of delivering care. Australian Health Review explores major national and international health issues and questions, enabling health professionals to keep their fingers on the pulse of the nation’s health decisions and to know what the most influential commentators and decision makers are thinking. Australian Health Review is a valuable resource for managers, policy makers and clinical staff in health organisations, including government departments, hospitals, community centres and aged-care facilities, as well as anyone with an interest in the health industry. Australian Health Review is published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信