Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines

Background Not all cancer patients receive state-of-the-art care and providing regular feedback to clinicians might reduce this problem. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of various data sources in providing feedback on the quality of cancer care. Methods Published clinical practice guidelines were used to obtain a list of processes-of-care of interest to clinicians. These were assigned to one of four data categories according to their availability and the marginal cost of using them for feedback. Results Only 8 (3%) of 243 processes-of-care could be measured using population-based registry or administrative inpatient data (lowest cost). A further 119 (49%) could be measured using a core clinical registry, which contains information on important prognostic factors (e.g., clinical stage, physiological reserve, hormone-receptor status). Another 88 (36%) required an expanded clinical registry or medical record review; mainly because they concerned long-term management of disease progression (recurrences and metastases) and 28 (11.5%) required patient interview or audio-taping of consultations because they involved information sharing between clinician and patient. Conclusion The advantages of population-based cancer registries and administrative inpatient data are wide coverage and low cost. The disadvantage is that they currently contain information on only a few processes-of-care. In most jurisdictions, clinical cancer registries, which can be used to report on many more processes-of-care, do not cover smaller hospitals. If we are to provide feedback about all patients, not just those in larger academic hospitals with the most developed data systems, then we need to develop sustainable population-based data systems that capture information on prognostic factors at the time of initial diagnosis and information on management of disease progression.

Timeliness and Clinical Impact of Hospital-Initiated Medication Reviews

Background: Medication-related problems often occur in the immediate post-discharge period. To reduce medication misadventure the Commonwealth Government funds home medicines reviews (HMRs). HMRs are initiated when general practitioners refer consenting patients to their community pharmacists, who then engage accredited pharmacists to review patients' medicines in their homes. Aim: To determine if hospital-initiated medication reviews (HIMRs) can be implemented in a more timely manner than HMRs; and to assess the impact of a bespoke referral form with comorbidity-specific questions on the quality of reports. Method: Eligible medical inpatients at risk of medication misadventure were referred by the hospital liaison pharmacist to participating accredited pharmacists post-discharge from hospital. Social, demographic and laboratory data were collected from medical records and during interviews with consenting patients. Issues raised in the HIMR reports were categorised: intervention/action, information given or recommendation, and assigned a rank of clinical significance. Results: HIMRs were conducted within 11.6 6.6 days postdischarge. 36 HIMR reports were evaluated and 1442 issues identified - information given (n = 1204), recommendations made (n = 88) and actions taken (n = 150). The majority of issues raised (89%) had a minor clinical impact. The bespoke referral form prompted approximately half of the issues raised. Conclusion: HIMRs can be facilitated in a more timely manner than post-discharge HMRs. There was an associated positive clinical impact of issues raised in the HIMR reports.

Refining animal models in fracture research: Seeking consensus in optimising both animal welfare and scientific validity for appropriate biomedical use

Background In an attempt to establish some consensus on the proper use and design of experimental animal models in musculoskeletal research, AOVET (the veterinary specialty group of the AO Foundation) in concert with the AO Research Institute (ARI), and the European Academy for the Study of Scientific and Technological Advance, convened a group of musculoskeletal researchers, veterinarians, legal experts, and ethicists to discuss, in a frank and open forum, the use of animals in musculoskeletal research. Methods The group narrowed the field to fracture research. The consensus opinion resulting from this workshop can be summarized as follows: Results & Conclusion Anaesthesia and pain management protocols for research animals should follow standard protocols applied in clinical work for the species involved. This will improve morbidity and mortality outcomes. A database should be established to facilitate selection of anaesthesia and pain management protocols for specific experimental surgical procedures and adopted as an International Standard (IS) according to animal species selected. A list of 10 golden rules and requirements for conduction of animal experiments in musculoskeletal research was drawn up comprising 1) Intelligent study designs to receive appropriate answers; 2) Minimal complication rates (5 to max. 10%); 3) Defined end-points for both welfare and scientific outputs analogous to quality assessment (QA) audit of protocols in GLP studies; 4) Sufficient details for materials and methods applied; 5) Potentially confounding variables (genetic background, seasonal, hormonal, size, histological, and biomechanical differences); 6) Post-operative management with emphasis on analgesia and follow-up examinations; 7) Study protocols to satisfy criteria established for a "justified animal study"; 8) Surgical expertise to conduct surgery on animals; 9) Pilot studies as a critical part of model validation and powering of the definitive study design; 10) Criteria for funding agencies to include requirements related to animal experiments as part of the overall scientific proposal review protocols. Such agencies are also encouraged to seriously consider and adopt the recommendations described here when awarding funds for specific projects. Specific new requirements and mandates related both to improving the welfare and scientific rigour of animal-based research models are urgently needed as part of international harmonization of standards.