Search

BACKGROUND: The investigators designed a sustained, surgeon-directed, iterative project to improve the quality of breast cancer surgery in south central Ontario. METHODS: The strategy included audit and feedback of surgeon-selected quality indicators, workshops, and tailoring interviews. Workshops were held to discuss quality improvement strategies, select quality indicators, review audited results, and select interventions for subsequent implementation. Semistructured tailoring interviews were conducted to identify facilitators and barriers to improved quality. All presentations and results were disseminated to all surgeons performing breast surgery in the study region. RESULTS: Forty-four surgeons performing breast surgery across 12 hospitals are involved in the project. Five workshops have been held since 2005. Surgeons' enthusiasm and involvement in the project have been positive. Interim results demonstrated that over 4 audit cycles (2006-2010), the preoperative core biopsy rate increased from 73% to 92%. The tailoring interviews indicated that 18 of 21 surgeons performed preoperative core biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: This project highlights the feasibility of a surgeon-directed, iterative quality improvement strategy in breast cancer surgery. Interim results demonstrate consistent improvements in a key selected quality indicator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: The long-term results of randomized trials have demonstrated equivalent survival rates for mastectomy and breast-conserving therapy for the treatment of early stage breast cancer. Consequently, the choice of treatment should be based on a patient's preferences.Objective: To evaluate the impact of a decision aid regarding the different surgical treatment options on patient decision making.Design and Setting: A cluster randomized trial for which general surgeons in the communities of central-west, and eastern Ontario, Canada, were randomly assigned to use the decision aid or not in the surgical consultation. Patients received the decision aid or not based on the surgeon seen.Participants: Twenty surgeons participated in the study. Of the 208 eligible women with newly diagnosed clinical stage I or II breast cancer seen by study surgeons, 201 agreed to be evaluated: 94 were assigned to the decision board and 107 to usual practice. Patients were recruited from November 1999 to April 2002.Intervention: The decision board is a decision aid designed to help physicians inform their patients about different treatment options and to enable patients to express a preference for treatment.Main Outcome Measures: Patient knowledge about the surgical treatment of breast cancer; decisional conflict; satisfaction with decision making; and the treatment decision following the consultation.Results: Patients in the decision board group had higher knowledge scores about their treatment options (66.9 vs 58.7; P<.001), had less decisional conflict (1.40 vs 1.62, P =.02), and were more satisfied with decision making (4.50 vs 4.32, P =.05) following the consultation. Patients who used the decision board were more likely to choose BCT (94% vs 76%, P =.03).Conclusions: The decision board was helpful in improving communication and enabling women to make a choice regarding treatment. Such instruments should be considered by surgeons when communicating the different surgical options to women with breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]