1. Caution Ahead: Research Challenges of a Randomized Controlled Trial Implemented to Improve Breast Cancer Treatment at Safety-Net Hospitals
- Author
-
Nina A. Bickell, Rebeca Franco, Margaret Kemeny, Ajay Shah, Anitha Srinivasan, Maria Castaldi, Shalini Arora, Theophilus Lewis, Michael Parides, Kevin Clarke, Alan Sickles, Peter W. Pappas, Ann Scheck McAlearney, and Kezhen Fei
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Quality management ,Safety net ,Original Contributions ,Treatment outcome ,MEDLINE ,Breast Neoplasms ,law.invention ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Breast cancer ,Randomized controlled trial ,law ,Medicine ,Humans ,Medical Informatics Applications ,Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ,Intention-to-treat analysis ,Oncology (nursing) ,business.industry ,030503 health policy & services ,Health Policy ,medicine.disease ,Quality Improvement ,Hospitals ,Intention to Treat Analysis ,Treatment Outcome ,Oncology ,Multicenter study ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Emergency medicine ,Female ,New York City ,0305 other medical science ,business ,Safety-net Providers - Abstract
Purpose: To implement and test a Web-based tracking and feedback (T&F) tool to close referral loops and reduce adjuvant breast cancer treatment underuse in safety-net hospitals (SNHs). Patient and Methods: We randomly assigned 10 SNHs, identified patients with new stage 1 to stage 3 breast cancer, assessed their connection with the oncologist, and relayed this information to surgeons for follow-up. We interviewed key informants about the tool’s usefulness. We conducted intention-to-treat and pre- and poststudy analyses to assess the T&F tool and implementation effectiveness, respectively. Results: Between the study start and intervention implementation, several hospitals reorganized care delivery and 49% of patients scheduled to undergo breast cancer surgery were ineligible because they already were in contact with an oncologist. One high-volume hospital closed. Despite randomization of hospitals, intervention (INT) hospitals had fewer white patients (5% v 16%; P = .0005), and more underuse (28% v 15%; P = .002) compared with usual care (UC) hospitals. Over time, INT hospitals with poorer follow-up significantly reduced underuse compared with UC hospitals (INT hospitals, from 33% to 9%, P = .001 v UC hospitals, from 15% to 11%, P = .5). There was no difference in underuse (9% at INT hospitals, 11% at UC hospitals; P = .8). Hospitals with better follow-up (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.98) had less underuse. In settings with poor follow-up and tracking approaches, key informants found the tool useful. The rapidly changing delivery landscape posed significant challenges to this implementation research. Conclusion: A T&F tool did not significantly reduce adjuvant underuse but may help reduce underuse in SNHs with poor follow-up capabilities. Inability to discern T&F effectiveness is likely due to encountered challenges that inform lessons for future implementation research.
- Published
- 2018