Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33397382›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

A mixed methods multiple case study to evaluate the implementation of a care pathway for colorectal cancer surgery using extended normalization process theory.

R van Zelm, E Coeckelberghs, W Sermeus, A Wolthuis, L Bruyneel, M Panella, K Vanhaecht

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02965794 (Descriptive Study to Evaluate the Care Process and the Quality of Care for Adult Cancer Patients Who Are Admitted for Colorectal Cancer Surgery.), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02965794 completednot on this map

Descriptive Study to Evaluate the Care Process and the Quality of Care for Adult Cancer Patients Who Are Admitted for Colorectal Cancer Surgery.

TypeobservationalSponsorEuropean Pathway AssociationRan2014 to 2019Enrolled480ConditionsCancerArmsCare pathways for colorectal cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

R van ZelmLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. ruben.vanzelm@kuleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0238-6392
E CoeckelberghsLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
W SermeusDepertment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
A WolthuisDepertment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
L BruyneelLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
M PanellaDepartment of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piemonte (UPO), Novarra, Italy.
K VanhaechtLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpecific factors that facilitate or prevent the implementation of enhanced recovery protocols for colorectal cancer surgery have been described in previous qualitative studies. This study aims to perform a concurrent qualitative and quantitative evaluation of factors associated with successful implementation of a care pathway (CP) for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer.

methodsThis comparative mixed methods multiple case study was based on a sample of 10 hospitals in 4 European countries that implemented a specific CP and performed pre- and post-implementation measurements. In-depth post-implementation interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals who were directly involved. Primary outcomes included protocol adherence and improvement rate. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) and self-rated protocol adherence. The hospitals were ranked based on these quantitative findings, and those with the highest and lowest scores were included in this study. Qualitative data were summarized on a per-case basis using extended Normalization Process Theory (eNPT) as theoretical framework. The data were then combined and analyzed using joint display methodology.

resultsData from 381 patients and 30 healthcare professionals were included. Mean protocol adherence rate increased from 56 to 62% and mean LOS decreased by 2.1 days. Both measures varied greatly between hospitals. The two highest-ranking hospitals and the three lowest-ranking hospitals were included as cases. Factors which could explain the differences in pre- and post-implementation performance included the degree to which the CP was integrated into daily practice, the level of experience and support for CP methodology provided to the improvement team, the intrinsic motivation of the team, shared goals and the degree of management support, alignment of CP development and hospital strategy, and participation of relevant disciplines, most notably, physicians.

conclusionsOverall improvement was achieved but was highly variable among the 5 hospitals evaluated. Specific factors involved in the implementation process that may be contributing to these differences were conceptualized using eNPT. Multidisciplinary teams intending to implement a CP should invest in shared goals and teamwork and focus on integration of the CP into daily processes. Support from hospital management directed specifically at quality improvement including audit may likewise facilitate the implementation process.

trial registrationNCT02965794 . US National Library of Medicine, ClinicalTrials.gov . Registered 4 August 2014.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsQuality ImprovementEuropeHumansLength of StayQualitative ResearchCare pathwayEnhanced recoveryExtended normalization process theory (eNPT)ImplementationMixed methods case studyProcess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID33397382
PMCPMC7784254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.