Search

Background: This study aimed to determine the proportion of patients receiving clinical practice guideline (CPG)-inconsistent care related to chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) prophylaxis, and to describe the association between CPG-inconsistent care and site size. The association between delivery of CPG-inconsistent care and patient outcomes (CIV control, admission prolongation, and unplanned healthcare visits) was also described., Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted at Children's Oncology Group (COG) National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) sites. Eligible patients received highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) as inpatients from January 2014 through December 2015, and were previously enrolled in a COG study. The COG generated a patient list from which patients were randomly selected for chart review by participating sites. A central panel adjudicated CIV prophylaxis received as CPG-consistent or -inconsistent., Results: Twenty-four sites participated. Over half of patients received CPG-inconsistent CIV prophylaxis (HEC: 59/112, 52.6%; MEC: 119/215, 55.3%). The most common reasons for CPG-inconsistency were shortened duration of antiemetic administration or omission of dexamethasone. Site size was not found to be associated with CPG-inconsistent care delivery (HEC: adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.23; MEC: adjusted OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.92-1.24). Additionally, there was no statistically significant association between receipt of CPG-inconsistent care and patient outcomes., Conclusions: Patients receiving MEC or HEC often received CPG-inconsistent CIV prophylaxis. Site size was not associated with receipt of CPG-inconsistent care. Future studies should evaluate strategies to improve CIV control among pediatric oncology patients including those aimed at improving CPG adherence., (© 2024 The Author(s). Pediatric Blood & Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The primary objective was to measure adherence to clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations for fertility preservation (FP) in pediatric cancer patients treated in National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) sites. Secondary objectives were to describe factors such as site size associated with CPG-inconsistent care delivery and cryopreservation completion. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study included patients 15 to 21 years old with a first cancer diagnosis from January 2014 through December 2015 who were previously enrolled to a Children's Oncology Group (COG) study and received care at a participating NCORP site. Patients were randomly selected from a list generated by the COG for chart review by participating sites. Primary outcome was care delivery that was inconsistent with a strong CPG recommendation on FP, namely discussion and offering of FP options before cancer treatment initiation, as adjudicated centrally by a panel. Results: A total of 129 patients from 25 sites were included. Among these, 48% (62/129) received CPG-inconsistent care. Most CPG-inconsistent care was due to lack of FP discussion documentation (93.5%, 58/62). Small site size, treatment at a pediatric (vs mixed adult/pediatric) site, and female sex were associated with higher odds of CPG-inconsistent care delivery. Conclusions: Newly diagnosed pediatric cancer patients often received CPG-inconsistent care for FP, with disproportionate gaps noted for females, and those treated at smaller or pediatric NCORP sites. The primary reason for CPG-inconsistent care is lack of FP discussion from clinicians. Opportunities to improve FP CPG implementation are highlighted.

Background: The primary objective was to measure the proportion of episodes where care delivery was inconsistent with selected recommendations of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) on fever and neutropenia (FN) management. The influence of site size on CPG-inconsistent care delivery, and association between patient outcomes and CPG-inconsistent care were described., Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study included patients less than 21 years old with cancer who were at high risk of poor FN outcomes and were previously enrolled to a Children's Oncology Group (COG) study at participating National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) institutions from January 2014 through December 2015. Patients were randomly selected for chart review by participating sites from a COG-generated list. Care delivered in each episode was adjudicated (CPG-consistent or CPG-inconsistent) against each of five selected recommendations., Results: A total of 107 patients from 22 sites, representing 157 FN episodes, were included. The most common CPG-inconsistent care delivered was omission of pulmonary computerized tomography in patients with persistent FN (60.3%). Of 74 episodes where assessment of four (episodes without persistent FN) or five (episodes with persistent FN) recommendations was possible, CPG-inconsistent care was delivered with respect to at least one recommendation in 63 (85%) episodes. Site size was not associated with CPG-inconsistent care delivery. No statistically significant association between CPG-inconsistent care and fever recurrence was observed., Conclusions: In this cohort of pediatric patients at high risk of poor FN outcomes, CPG-inconsistent care was common. Opportunities to optimize resource stewardship by boosting supportive care CPG implementation are highlighted., (© 2024 The Authors. Pediatric Blood & Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objective: To develop a summary format of clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations to improve understandability among health care professionals., Methods: We developed a summary format based on current research and used the "Think Aloud" technique in one-on-one cognitive interviews to iteratively improve it. Interviews of health care professionals from Children's Oncology Group-member, National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program sites were conducted. After every five interviews (a round), responses were reviewed, and changes made to the format until it was well understood and no new, substantive suggestions for revision were raised. We took a directed (deductive) approach to content analysis of the interview notes to identify concerns related to recommendation summary usability, understandability, validity, applicability and visual appeal., Results: During seven rounds of interviews with 33 health care professionals, we identified important factors that influenced understandability. Participants found understanding weak recommendations more challenging than strong recommendations. Understanding was improved when the term 'conditional' recommendation was used instead of 'weak' recommendation. Participants found a Rationale section to be very helpful but desired more information when a recommendation entailed a practice change. In the final format, the recommendation strength is clearly indicated in the title, highlighted, and defined within a text box. The rationale for the recommendation is in a column on the left, with supporting evidence on the right. In a bulleted list, the Rationale section describes the benefits and harms and additional factors, such as implementation, that were considered by the CPG developers. Each bullet under the supporting evidence section indicates the level of evidence with an explanation and the supporting studies with hyperlinks when applicable., Conclusions: A summary format to present strong and conditional recommendations was created through an iterative interview process. The format is straightforward, making it easy for organizations and CPG developers to use it to communicate recommendations clearly to intended users., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Santesso et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Clinical practice guideline (CPG)-consistent care improves patient outcomes, but CPG implementation is poor. Little is known about CPG implementation in pediatric oncology. This study aimed to understand supportive care CPG implementation facilitators and barriers at pediatric oncology National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) institutions., Methods: Healthcare professionals at 26 pediatric, Children's Oncology Group-member, NCORP institutions were invited to participate in face-to-face focus groups. Serial focus groups were held until saturation of ideas was reached. Supportive care CPG implementation facilitators and barriers were solicited using nominal group technique (NGT), and implementation of specific supportive care CPG recommendations was discussed. Notes from each focus group were analyzed using a directed content analysis. The top five themes arising from an analysis of NGT items were identified, first from each focus group and then across all focus groups., Results: Saturation of ideas was reached after seven focus groups involving 35 participants from 18 institutions. The top five facilitators of CPG implementation identified across all focus groups were organizational factors including charging teams with CPG implementation, individual factors including willingness to standardize care, user needs and values including mentorship, system factors including implementation structure, and implementation strategies including a basis in science. The top five barriers of CPG implementation identified were organizational factors including tolerance for inconsistencies, individual factors including lack of trust, system factors including administrative hurdles, user needs and values including lack of inclusivity, and professional including knowledge gaps., Conclusions: Healthcare professionals at pediatric NCORP institutions believe that organizational factors are the most important determinants of supportive care CPG implementation. They believe that CPG-consistent supportive care is most likely to be delivered in organizations that prioritize evidence-based care, provide structure and resources to implement CPGs, and eliminate implementation barriers., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02847130. Date of registration: July 28, 2016., (© 2021. The Author(s).)