ArticleBMC health services research2024
A qualitative study of providers' perspectives on cross-institutional care coordination for pancreatic cancer: challenges and opportunities.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite calls for regionalizing pancreatic cancer (PC) care to high-volume centers (HVCs), many patients with PC elect to receive therapy closer to their home or at multiple institutions. In the context of cross-institutional PC care, the challenges associated with coordinating care are poorly understood.
methodsIn this qualitative study we conducted semi-structured interviews with oncology clinicians from a HVC (n = 9) and community-based hospitals (n = 11) to assess their perspectives related to coordinating the care of and treating PC patients across their respective institutions. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using deductive and inductive approaches to identify themes related to cross-institutional coordination challenges and to note improvement opportunities.
resultsClinicians identified challenges associated with closed-loop communication due, in part, to not having access to a shared electronic health record. Challenges with patient co-management were attributed to patients receiving inconsistent recommendations from different clinicians. To address these challenges, participants suggested several improvement opportunities such as building rapport with clinicians across institutions and updating tumor board processes. The opportunity to update tumor board processes was reportedly multi-dimensional and could involve: (1) designating a tumor board coordinator; (2) documenting and disseminating tumor board recommendations; and (3) using teleconferencing to facilitate community-based clinician engagement during tumor board meetings.
conclusionsIn light of communication barriers and challenges associated with patient co-management, enabling the development of relationships among PC clinicians and improving the practices of multidisciplinary tumor boards could potentially foster cross-institutional coordination. Research examining how multidisciplinary tumor board coordinators and teleconferencing platforms could enhance cross-institutional communication and thereby improve patient outcomes is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.