Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Clinical quality registries (CQRs) monitor compliance against optimal practice and provide feedback to the clinical community and wider stakeholder groups. Despite a number of CQRs having incorporated the patient perspective to support the evaluation of healthcare delivery, no recommendations for inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in CQRs exist. The aim of this study was to develop a core set of recommendations for PROMs inclusion of in CQRs. Method An online two-round Delphi survey was performed among CQR data custodians, quality of life researchers, biostatisticians and clinicians largely recruited in Australia. A list of statements for the recommendations was identified from a literature and survey of the Australian registries conducted in 2019. The statements were grouped into the following domains: rationale, setting, ethics, instrument, administration, data management, statistical methods, and feedback and reporting. Eighteen experts were invited to participate, 11 agreed to undertake the first online survey (round 1). Of these, nine experts completed the online survey for round 2. Results From 117 statements presented to the Delphi panel in round 1, a total of 72 recommendations (55 from round 1 and 17 from round 2) with median importance (MI) ≥ 7 and disagreement index (DI) < 1 were proposed for inclusion into the final draft set and were reviewed by the project team. Recommendations were refined for clarity and to read as stand-alone statements. Ten overlapped conceptually and, therefore, were merged to reduce repetition. The final 62 recommendations were sent for review to the panel members for their feedback, which was incorporated into the final set. Conclusion This is the first study to develop preliminary recommendations for PROMs inclusion in CQRs. Recommendations for PROMs implementation are critically important for registries to assure meaningful PROMs data capture, use, interpretation, and reporting to improve health outcomes and healthcare value.

Implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to measure and evaluate health outcomes is increasing worldwide. Along with this emerging trend, it is important to identify which guidelines, frameworks, checklists, and recommendations exist, and if and how they have been used in implementing PROMs, especially in clinical quality registries (CQRs). This review aims to identify existing publications, as well as publications that discuss the application of actual guidelines, frameworks, checklists, and recommendations on PROMs' implementation for various purposes such as clinical trials, clinical practice, and CQRs. In addition, the identified publications will be used to guide the development of a new guideline for PROMs' implementation in CQRs, which is the aim of the broader project. A literature search of the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be conducted since the inception of the databases, in addition to using Google Scholar and gray literature to identify literature for the scoping review. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria will be used for all phases of screening. Existing publications of guidelines, frameworks, checklists, recommendations, and publications discussing the application of those methodologies for implementing PROMs in clinical trials, clinical practice, and CQRs will be included in the final review. Data relating to bibliographic information, aim, the purpose of PROMs use (clinical trial, practice, or registries), name of guideline, framework, checklist and recommendations, the rationale for development, and their purpose and implications will be extracted. Additionally, for publications of actual methodologies, aspects or domains of PROMs' implementation will be extracted. A narrative synthesis of included publications will be conducted. The electronic database searches were completed in March 2024. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction will be completed in May 2024. The review is expected to be completed by the end of August 2024. The findings of this scoping review will provide evidence on any existing methodologies and tools for PROMs' implementation in clinical trials, clinical practice, and CQRs. It is anticipated that the publications will help us guide the development of a new guideline for PROMs' implementation in CQRs. PROSPERO CRD42022366085; https://tinyurl.com/bdesk98x. DERR1-10.2196/52572.

Accurate pre-operative imaging plays a vital role in patient selection for surgery and in allocating stage-appropriate therapies to patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (PC). This study aims to: (1) understand the current diagnosis and staging practices for PC; and (2) explore the factors (barriers and enablers) that influence the use of a pancreatic protocol computed tomography (PPCT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to confirm diagnosis and/or accurately stage PC. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with radiologists, surgeons, gastroenterologists, medical and radiation oncologists from the states of New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria, Australia. Interviews were conducted either in person or via video conferencing. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, de-identified and data were thematically coded according to the 12 domains explored within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Common belief statements were generated to compare the variation between participant responses. In total, 21 clinicians (5 radiologists, 10 surgeons, 2 gastroenterologists, 4 medical and radiation oncologists) were interviewed over a four-month-period. Belief statements relevant to the TDF domains were generated. Across the 11 relevant domains, 20 themes and 30 specific beliefs were identified. All TDF domains, with the exception of social influences were identified by participants as relevant to protocol-based imaging using either a PPCT or MRI, with the domains of knowledge, skills and environmental context and resources being offered by most participants as being relevant in influencing their decisions. To maximise outcomes and personalise therapy it is imperative that diagnosis and staging investigations using the most appropriate imaging modalities are conducted in a timely, efficient and effective manner. The results provide an understanding of specialists' opinion and behaviour in relation to a PPCT or MRI and should be used to inform the design of future interventions to improve compliance with this practice.

Background While there is increasing evidence on the benefits of PROMs in cancer care, the extent of routine collection and use of PROMs in clinical cancer practice across Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) is unknown. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of PROMs use in routine clinical cancer care in ANZ. Methods An online survey was designed and disseminated via professional societies and organisations using a snowball sampling approach to clinical and health administration professionals managing cancer care in ANZ. A poster advertising the study was also circulated on professional social media networks via LinkedIn and Twitter inviting health professionals from ANZ to participate if they were using or intending to use PROMs in clinical cancer practice. Responders opted into the survey via the survey link. Results From 132 survey views, 91(response rate, 69%) respondents from 56 clinical practices across ANZ agreed to participate in the survey, and of these 55 ( n  = 55/91, 60%) respondents reported collecting PROMs within their clinical practice. The majority of the respondents were from the State of New South Wales in Australia ( n  = 21/55, 38%), hospital ( n  = 35/55, 64%), and a public setting ( n  = 46/55, 83%). PROMs were collected in all cancer types ( n  = 21/36, 58%), in all stages of the disease ( n  = 31/36, 86%), in an adult population ( n  = 33/36, 92%), applied in English ( n  = 33/36, 92%), and used to facilitate communication with other reasons (27/36, 75%). A geospatial map analysis provided insights into the variation in PROMs uptake between the two countries and in certain jurisdictions within Australia. This study also highlights the limited resources for PROMs implementation, and a lack of systematic priority driven approach. Conclusion PROM use across Australia and New Zealand seems variable and occurring predominantly in larger metropolitan centres with limited standardisation of approach and implementation. A greater focus on equitable adoption of PROMs in diverse cancer care settings is urgently needed.

Although there are several established international guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), there is limited information detailing specific indicators of good quality care. The aim of this study was to develop a core set of quality indicators (QIs) to underpin the management of HCC. We undertook a modified, two‐round, Delphi consensus study comprising a working group and experts involved in the management of HCC as well as consumer representatives. QIs were derived from an extensive review of the literature. The role of the participants was to identify the most important and measurable QIs for inclusion in an HCC clinical quality registry. From an initial 94 QIs, 40 were proposed to the participants. Of these, 23 QIs ultimately met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final set. This included (a) nine related to the initial diagnosis and staging, including timing to diagnosis, required baseline clinical and laboratory assessments, prior surveillance for HCC, diagnostic imaging and pathology, tumor staging, and multidisciplinary care; (b) thirteen related to treatment and management, including role of antiviral therapy, timing to treatment, localized ablation and locoregional therapy, surgery, transplantation, systemic therapy, method of response assessment, and supportive care; and (c) one outcome assessment related to surgical mortality. Conclusion: We identified a core set of nationally agreed measurable QIs for the diagnosis, staging, and management of HCC. The adherence to these best practice QIs may lead to system‐level improvement in quality of care and, ultimately, improvement in patient outcomes, including survival.

BackgroundEvidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommend discussion by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) to review and plan the management of patients for a variety of cancers. However, not all patients diagnosed with cancer are presented at an MDT.Objectives(1) To identify the factors (barriers and enablers) influencing presentation of all patients to, and the perceived value of, MDT meetings in the management of patients with pancreatic cancer and; (2) to identify potential interventions that could overcome modifiable barriers and enhance enablers using the theoretical domains framework (TDF).MethodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with radiologists, surgeons, medical and radiation oncologists, gastroenterologists, palliative care specialists and nurse specialists based in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia. Interviews were conducted either in person or via videoconferencing. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, deidentified and data were thematically coded according to the 12 domains explored within the TDF. Common belief statements were generated to compare the variation between participant responses.ResultsIn total, 29 specialists were interviewed over a 4-month period. Twenty-two themes and 40 belief statements relevant to all the TDF domains were generated. Key enablers influencing MDT practices included a strong organisational focus (social/professional role and identity), beliefs about the benefits of an MDT discussion (beliefs about consequences), the use of technology, for example, videoconferencing (environmental context and resources), the motivation to provide good quality care (motivation and goals) and collegiality (social influences). Barriers included: absence of palliative care representation (skills), the number of MDT meetings (environmental context and resources), the cumulative cost of staff time (beliefs about consequences), the lack of capacity to discuss all patients within the allotted time (beliefs about capabilities) and reduced confidence to participate in discussions (social influences).ConclusionsThe internal and external organisational structures surrounding MDT meetings ideally need to be strengthened with the development of agreed evidence-based protocols and referral pathways, a focus on resource allocation and capabilities, and a culture that fosters widespread collaboration for all stages of pancreatic cancer.

PurposeThe Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry (UGICR) was developed to monitor and improve the quality of care provided to patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers in Australia.ParticipantsIt supports four cancer modules: pancreatic, oesophagogastric, biliary and primary liver cancer. The pancreatic cancer (PC) module was the first module to be implemented, with others being established in a staged approach. Individuals are recruited to the registry if they are aged 18 years or older, have received care for their cancer at a participating public/private hospital or private clinic in Australia and do not opt out of participation.Findings to dateThe UGICR is governed by a multidisciplinary steering committee that provides clinical governance and oversees clinical working parties. The role of the working parties is to develop quality indicators based on best practice for each registry module, develop the minimum datasets and provide guidance in analysing and reporting of results. Data are captured from existing data sources (population-based cancer incidence registries, pathology databases and hospital-coded data) and manually from clinical records. Data collectors directly enter information into a secure web-based Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data collection platform. The PC module began with a pilot phase, and subsequently, we used a formal modified Delphi consensus process to establish a core set of quality indicators for PC. The second module developed was the oesophagogastric cancer (OGC) module. Results of the 1 year pilot phases for PC and OGC modules are included in this cohort profile.Future plansThe UGICR will provide regular reports of risk-adjusted, benchmarked performance on a range of quality indicators that will highlight variations in care and clinical outcomes at a health service level. The registry has also been developed with the view to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which will further add to our understanding of the care of patients with these cancers.

Patient-centred and value-based health-care organisations are increasingly recognising the importance of the patient perspective in the measurement and evaluation of health outcomes. This has been primarily implemented using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Clinical quality registries (CQRs) are specifically designed to improve direct clinical care, benchmark health-care provision and inform health service planning and policy. Despite CQRs having incorporated the patient perspective to support the evaluation of health-care provision, no evidence-based guidelines for inclusion of PROMs in CQRs exist. This has led to substantial heterogeneity in capturing and reporting PROMs within this setting. This publication is the first in a series describing the development of evidence-informed guidelines for PROMs inclusion within CQRs in Australia. This study consisted of three components: 1) a literature review of existing evidence of guidelines, enablers, barriers, and lessons learnt of PROMs use within the CQRs setting; 2) a survey of Australian CQRs to determine current practices for PROMs use and reporting; and 3) development of a preliminary conceptual framework for PROMs inclusion in CQRs. Content analysis of the literature review and survey of 66 Australian registries elicited eight categories for the conceptual framework. The framework covers eight components: rationale, setting, ethics, selection of PROMs, administration, data management, statistical methods, feedback, and reporting. We developed a preliminary conceptual framework, which classified findings, from both the literature and the survey, into broad categories ranging from initial development to outcome dissemination providing the structure for development of guidelines in the next phase of this project, engaging national and international leaders in health-related quality of life research, clinicians, researchers, patient advocates and consumers.