Next Article in Journal
Patients’ Perceptions of Gene Expression Profiling in Breast Cancer Treatment Decisions
Previous Article in Journal
Rasch analysis of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and research implications
 
 
Current Oncology is published by MDPI from Volume 28 Issue 1 (2021). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Multimed Inc..
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Surgical Process Improvement Tools: Defining Quality Gaps and Priority Areas in Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery

1
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
2
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
3
Department of Surgery and Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
4
Division of General Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Curr. Oncol. 2014, 21(2), 195-202; https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1733
Submission received: 2 January 2014 / Revised: 3 February 2014 / Accepted: 5 March 2014 / Published: 1 April 2014

Abstract

Background: Surgery is a cornerstone of cancer treatment, but significant differences in the quality of surgery have been reported. Surgical process improvement tools (spits) modify the processes of care as a means to quality improvement (qi). We were interested in developing spits in the area of gastrointestinal (gi) cancer surgery. We report the recommendations of an expert panel held to define quality gaps and establish priority areas that would benefit from spits. Methods: The present study used the knowledge-to-action cycle was as a framework. Canadian experts in qi and in gi cancer surgery were assembled in a nominal group workshop. Participants evaluated the merits of spits, described gaps in current knowledge, and identified and ranked processes of care that would benefit from qi. A qualitative analysis of the workshop deliberations using modified grounded theory methods identified major themes. Results: The expert panel consisted of 22 participants. Experts confirmed that spits were an important strategy for qi. The top-rated spits included clinical pathways, electronic information technology, and patient safety tools. The preferred settings for use of spits included preoperative and intraoperative settings and multidisciplinary contexts. Outcomes of interest were cancer-related outcomes, process, and the technical quality of surgery measures. Conclusions: Surgical process improvement tools were confirmed as an important strategy. Expert panel recommendations will be used to guide future research efforts for spits in gi cancer surgery.
Keywords: quality improvement; patient safety; knowledge translation; clinical pathways; perioperative care; cancer surgery quality improvement; patient safety; knowledge translation; clinical pathways; perioperative care; cancer surgery

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wei, A.C.; Devitt, K.S.; Wiebe, M.; Bathe, O.F.; McLeod, R.S.; Urbach, D.R. Surgical Process Improvement Tools: Defining Quality Gaps and Priority Areas in Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery. Curr. Oncol. 2014, 21, 195-202. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1733

AMA Style

Wei AC, Devitt KS, Wiebe M, Bathe OF, McLeod RS, Urbach DR. Surgical Process Improvement Tools: Defining Quality Gaps and Priority Areas in Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery. Current Oncology. 2014; 21(2):195-202. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1733

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wei, A.C., K.S. Devitt, M. Wiebe, O.F. Bathe, R.S. McLeod, and D.R. Urbach. 2014. "Surgical Process Improvement Tools: Defining Quality Gaps and Priority Areas in Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery" Current Oncology 21, no. 2: 195-202. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1733

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop