Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38862236›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2024

Implementation and evaluation of a national quality improvement initiative in cancer surgery.

Angel Arnaout, Shaheena Mukhi, Jamie Brehaut, Sarah Davidson, Michael Fung Kee Fung, Pamela Hebbard, Christopher Hillis, Robyn Leonard, Lloyd A Mack, Alex Mathieson and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Advancing learning health care systems with best practice meetings: a mixed-methods study with insights from the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Understanding How Surgeons Improve the Quality of Breast Cancer Surgery Using the Theoretical Domains Framework.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025
    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

17 authors.

Angel ArnaoutOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada anarnaout@toh.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-1546-3548
Shaheena MukhiCanadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jamie BrehautOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Sarah DavidsonCanadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michael Fung Kee FungOttawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Pamela HebbardCancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Christopher HillisHamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Robyn LeonardCanadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lloyd A MackOncology, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Alex MathiesonMemorial University, St John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Justin PresseauClinical Epidemiology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2132-0703
David SchaefferPathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Andrew SeelyDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Gavin StuartThe University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Marvin TeschPrince Edward Island Department of Health and Wellness, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.
Nicholas WesthuizenVancouver Island Health Authority, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Craig EarleCanadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2017, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, a Canadian federally sponsored organisation, initiated a national multijurisdictional quality improvement (QI) initiative to maximise the use of synoptic data to drive cancer system improvements, known as the Evidence for Surgical Synoptic Quality Improvement Programme. The goal of our study was to evaluate the outcomes, determinants and learning of this nationally led initiative across six jurisdictions in Canada, integrating a mix of cancer surgery disease sites and clinicians.

methodsA mixed-methods evaluation (surveys, semistructured interviews and focus groups) of this initiative was focused on the ability of each jurisdiction to use synoptic reporting data to successfully implement and sustain QI projects to beyond the completion of the initiative and the lessons learnt in the process. Resources provided to the jurisdictions included operational funding, training in QI methodology, national forums, expert coaches, and ad hoc monitoring and support. The programme emphasised foundational concepts of the QI process including data literacy, audit and feedback reports, communities of practice (CoP) and positive deviance methodology.

results101 CoP meetings were held and 337 clinicians received feedback reports. There were 23 projects, and 22 of 23 (95%) showed improvements with 15 of 23 (65%) achieving the proposed targets. Enablers of effective data utilisation/feedback reports for QI included the need for clinicians to trust the data, have comparative data for feedback, and the engagement of both data scientists and clinicians in designing feedback reports. Enablers of sustainability of QI within each jurisdiction included QI training for clinicians, the ability to continue CoP meetings, executive and broad stakeholder engagement, and the ability to use pre-existing organisational infrastructures and processes. Barriers to continue QI work included lack of funding for core team members, lack of automated data collection processes and lack of clinician incentives (financial and other).

conclusionSuccess and sustainability in data-driven QI in cancer surgery require skills in QI methodology, data literacy and feedback, dedicated supportive personnel and an environment that promotes the process of collective learning and shared accountability. Building these capabilities in jurisdictional teams, tailoring interventions to facility contexts and strong leadership engagement will create the capacity for continued success in QI for cancer surgery.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsQuality ImprovementCanadaFocus GroupsHumansProgram EvaluationSurveys and QuestionnairesAudit and feedbackQuality improvementSurgery

Identifiers

PMID38862236
PMCPMC11168180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.