A New Knowledge Transfer Strategy for Prostate Cancer Management in Ontario
CUA Online Library. L. Chin J. 06/22/13; 31400; UP-21
Disclosure(s): none
CLICK HERE TO LOGIN
REGULAR CONTENT
REGULAR CONTENT
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.
Abstract
Rate & Comment (0)
Introduction & Objective: Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) Surgical Oncology Program is a provincial (population 13.5M) initiative to improving surgical care, minimize practice aberrations and optimize resource usage via clinical practice guideline (CPG) development and community of practice engagement. To change physician practice, evidence suggests active implementation strategies with a multifaceted approach instead of passive didactic approaches (via mailing, journal publication) are needed. CCO developed a multidisciplinary online list serv discussion forum to enhance dissemination to urologists and pathologists a CPG on prostate cancer (CaP) surgical and pathological quality performance for radical prostatectomy(RP). (Key surgical recommendations: positive margin rate <20% for pT2, <35% for pT3; transfusion rate <10%; rectal injury rate <1%, provide detailed clinical information for pathologist). Herein we report the process, utility and feedback of a new knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) strategy in a large geographic region.
Methods: Using an electronic mailing list software application, the “list serv” consisted of a series of 4 clinical scenarios posted on-line, allowing real-time discussion. The scenarios highlighting key CPG recommendations, included a low, intermediate and high risk case, and one focusing on quality improvement initiatives. For each scenario, clinical information and questions to stimulate discussion were posted on Weeks 1,2. Participants posted comments with clinical experts facilitating discussion and addressing questions. Recommendations from the CPG and supporting evidence were posted in Week 3. At the end of each scenario and entire list serv, online participant evaluation was sought. There was a final “Ask the Experts” session.
Results: 162 participants included Urology(58), Radiation (22) & Medical (5)Oncology, Pathology(57) + others (22). Results of participation and evaluation of the material and List serv process are listed in Table.
Conclusion: There was excellent participation and satisfaction from participants. with this prostate cancer list serv process and format. Although objective quantitative assessment was not possible, self-reported increased awareness of new practice guidelines and plans for practice change suggest this Internet-based tool is an effective knowledge transfer and exchange strategy.
Methods: Using an electronic mailing list software application, the “list serv” consisted of a series of 4 clinical scenarios posted on-line, allowing real-time discussion. The scenarios highlighting key CPG recommendations, included a low, intermediate and high risk case, and one focusing on quality improvement initiatives. For each scenario, clinical information and questions to stimulate discussion were posted on Weeks 1,2. Participants posted comments with clinical experts facilitating discussion and addressing questions. Recommendations from the CPG and supporting evidence were posted in Week 3. At the end of each scenario and entire list serv, online participant evaluation was sought. There was a final “Ask the Experts” session.
Results: 162 participants included Urology(58), Radiation (22) & Medical (5)Oncology, Pathology(57) + others (22). Results of participation and evaluation of the material and List serv process are listed in Table.
Conclusion: There was excellent participation and satisfaction from participants. with this prostate cancer list serv process and format. Although objective quantitative assessment was not possible, self-reported increased awareness of new practice guidelines and plans for practice change suggest this Internet-based tool is an effective knowledge transfer and exchange strategy.
Introduction & Objective: Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) Surgical Oncology Program is a provincial (population 13.5M) initiative to improving surgical care, minimize practice aberrations and optimize resource usage via clinical practice guideline (CPG) development and community of practice engagement. To change physician practice, evidence suggests active implementation strategies with a multifaceted approach instead of passive didactic approaches (via mailing, journal publication) are needed. CCO developed a multidisciplinary online list serv discussion forum to enhance dissemination to urologists and pathologists a CPG on prostate cancer (CaP) surgical and pathological quality performance for radical prostatectomy(RP). (Key surgical recommendations: positive margin rate <20% for pT2, <35% for pT3; transfusion rate <10%; rectal injury rate <1%, provide detailed clinical information for pathologist). Herein we report the process, utility and feedback of a new knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) strategy in a large geographic region.
Methods: Using an electronic mailing list software application, the “list serv” consisted of a series of 4 clinical scenarios posted on-line, allowing real-time discussion. The scenarios highlighting key CPG recommendations, included a low, intermediate and high risk case, and one focusing on quality improvement initiatives. For each scenario, clinical information and questions to stimulate discussion were posted on Weeks 1,2. Participants posted comments with clinical experts facilitating discussion and addressing questions. Recommendations from the CPG and supporting evidence were posted in Week 3. At the end of each scenario and entire list serv, online participant evaluation was sought. There was a final “Ask the Experts” session.
Results: 162 participants included Urology(58), Radiation (22) & Medical (5)Oncology, Pathology(57) + others (22). Results of participation and evaluation of the material and List serv process are listed in Table.
Conclusion: There was excellent participation and satisfaction from participants. with this prostate cancer list serv process and format. Although objective quantitative assessment was not possible, self-reported increased awareness of new practice guidelines and plans for practice change suggest this Internet-based tool is an effective knowledge transfer and exchange strategy.
Methods: Using an electronic mailing list software application, the “list serv” consisted of a series of 4 clinical scenarios posted on-line, allowing real-time discussion. The scenarios highlighting key CPG recommendations, included a low, intermediate and high risk case, and one focusing on quality improvement initiatives. For each scenario, clinical information and questions to stimulate discussion were posted on Weeks 1,2. Participants posted comments with clinical experts facilitating discussion and addressing questions. Recommendations from the CPG and supporting evidence were posted in Week 3. At the end of each scenario and entire list serv, online participant evaluation was sought. There was a final “Ask the Experts” session.
Results: 162 participants included Urology(58), Radiation (22) & Medical (5)Oncology, Pathology(57) + others (22). Results of participation and evaluation of the material and List serv process are listed in Table.
Conclusion: There was excellent participation and satisfaction from participants. with this prostate cancer list serv process and format. Although objective quantitative assessment was not possible, self-reported increased awareness of new practice guidelines and plans for practice change suggest this Internet-based tool is an effective knowledge transfer and exchange strategy.
Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}