An electronic registry to improve adherence to active surveillance monitoring among men with prostate cancer at a safety-net hospital: protocol for a pilot study

Benjamin Cedars, Sarah Lisker, Hala T Borno, Puneet Kamal, Benjamin Breyer, Urmimala Sarkar, Benjamin Cedars, Sarah Lisker, Hala T Borno, Puneet Kamal, Benjamin Breyer, Urmimala Sarkar

Abstract

Background: The evidence-based practice of active surveillance to monitor men with favorable-risk prostate cancer in lieu of initial definitive treatment is becoming more common. However, there are barriers to effective implementation, particularly in low-resource settings. Our goal is to assess the efficacy and feasibility of a health information technology registry for men on active surveillance at a safety-net hospital to ensure patients receive guideline-recommended care.

Methods: We developed an electronic registry for urology clinic staff to monitor men on active surveillance. The health information technology tool was developed using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model and iteratively tailored to the needs of the clinic by engaging providers in a co-design process. We will enroll all men at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center who choose active surveillance as a treatment strategy. The primary outcomes to be assessed during this non-randomized, pragmatic evaluation are number of days delayed beyond recommended date of follow-up testing, the proportion of men who are lost to follow-up, the cancer stage at active treatment, and the feasibility and acceptability of the clinic-wide intervention with clinic staff. Secondary outcomes include appointment adherence within 30 days of the scheduled date.

Discussion: Use of a customized electronic approach for monitoring men on active surveillance could improve patient outcomes. It may help reduce the number of men lost to follow-up and improve adherence to timely follow-up testing. Evaluating the adoption and efficacy of a customized registry in a safety-net setting may also demonstrate feasibility for implementation in diverse clinical contexts.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03553732, An Electronic Registry to Improve Adherence to Active Surveillance Monitoring at a Safety-net Hospital. Registered 11 June 2018.

Keywords: Active surveillance; Health information technology (HIT); Patient safety; Prostate cancer; Safety net; Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS).

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors declare they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Workflow diagram depicting the various elements of the HIT tool
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Screenshot depicting the population-level view of patients on AS. The patient names are fictitious for demonstration purposes. b Screenshot of AS follow-up tasks on the patient level

References

    1. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415–1424. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220.
    1. Mohler JL. The 2010 NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology on prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010;8(2):145. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0010.
    1. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013. Jama. 2015;314(1):80–82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.6036.
    1. Womble PR, Montie JE, Ye Z, Linsell SM, Lane BR, Miller DC. Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer. European urology. 2015;67(1):44–50. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.024.
    1. Loeb S, Walter D, Curnyn C, Gold HT, Lepor H, Makarov DV. How active is active surveillance? Intensity of followup during active surveillance for prostate cancer in the United States. The J Urol. 2016;196(3):721–726. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.2963.
    1. Luckenbaugh AN, Auffenberg GB, Hawken SR, Dhir A, Linsell S, Kaul S, et al. Variation in guideline concordant active surveillance followup in diverse urology practices. J Urol. 2017;197(3 Part 1):621–626. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.071.
    1. Inoue LY, Lin DW, Newcomb LF, Leonardson AS, Ankerst D, Gulati R, et al. Comparative analysis of biopsy upgrading in four prostate cancer active surveillance cohorts. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(1):1–9. doi: 10.7326/M17-0548.
    1. Werner RM, Goldman LE, Dudley RA. Comparison of change in quality of care between safety-net and non–safety-net hospitals. Jama. 2008;299(18):2180–2187. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.18.2180.
    1. Hasnain-Wynia R, Baker DW, Nerenz D, Feinglass J, Beal AC, Landrum MB, et al. Disparities in health care are driven by where minority patients seek care: examination of the hospital quality alliance measures. Archives of internal medicine. 2007;167(12):1233–1239. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.12.1233.
    1. Kelly SP, Van Den Eeden SK, Hoffman RM, Aaronson DS, Lobo T, Luta G, et al. Sociodemographic and clinical predictors of switching to active treatment among a large, ethnically diverse cohort of men with low risk prostate cancer on observational management. The Journal of urology. 2016;196(3):734–740. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.04.045.
    1. Abern M, Bassett M, Tsivian M, Banez L, Polascik T, Ferrandino M, et al. Race is associated with discontinuation of active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: results from the Duke Prostate Center. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2013;16(1):85. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2012.38.
    1. Krupski TL, Kwan L, Afifi AA, Litwin MS. Geographic and socioeconomic variation in the treatment of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(31):7881–7888. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.08.755.
    1. Tomic K, Ventimiglia E, Robinson D, Häggström C, Lambe M, Stattin P. Socioeconomic status and diagnosis, treatment, and mortality in men with prostate cancer. Nationwide population-based study. Int J Cancer. 2018;142(12):2478–2484. doi: 10.1002/ijc.31272.
    1. Ballas LK, Kraus R, Ji L, Groshen S, Stern MC, Gill I, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: are we failing Latino patients at a large safety net hospital? Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018;16(4):e719–ee27. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2018.01.018.
    1. Osterberg E. Charles, Palmer Nynikka R.A., Harris Catherine R., Murphy Gregory P., Blaschko Sarah D., Chu Carissa, Allen Isabel E., Cooperberg Matthew R., Carroll Peter R., Breyer Benjamin N. Outcomes of men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer at a safety-net hospital. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. 2017;35(11):663.e9-663.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.07.003.
    1. Carayon P, Hundt AS, Karsh B, Gurses AP, Alvarado C, Smith M, et al. Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. BMJ Qual Saf. 2006;15(suppl 1):i50–ii8. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2005.015842.
    1. McDonald KM, Su G, Lisker S, Patterson ES, Sarkar U. Implementation science for ambulatory care safety: a novel method to develop context-sensitive interventions to reduce quality gaps in monitoring high-risk patients. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):79. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0609-5.
    1. Richardson A. Using customer journey maps to improve customer experience. Harv Bus Rev. 2010;15(1):2–5.
    1. Lowry SZ, Ramaiah M, Patterson ES, Brick D, Gurses AP, Ozok A, et al. Integrating electronic health records into clinical workflow: an application of human factors modeling methods to ambulatory care. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care. New Delhi: SAGE Publications Sage India; 2014.
    1. Carayon P, Karsh B-T, Cartmill R, Hoonakker P, Hundt AS, Krueger D, et al. Incorporating Health IT Into Workflow Redesign: Request for Information Summary Report. AHRQ Publication No. 10-0074-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2010:i-52.
    1. Sarkar U, Simchowitz B, Bonacum D, Strull W, Lopez A, Rotteau L, et al. A qualitative analysis of physician perspectives on missed and delayed outpatient diagnosis: the focus on system-related factors. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2014;40(10):461–AP1. doi: 10.1016/S1553-7250(14)40059-X.
    1. Medicine Io, National Academies of Sciences E, Medicine . In: Improving diagnosis in health care. Balogh EP, Miller BT, Ball JR, editors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015. p. 472.
    1. Patterson ES, Woods DD, Tinapple D, Roth EM. Using cognitive task analysis (CTA) to seed design concepts for intelligence analysts under data overload. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Sage CA; 2001.
    1. Cahill J, McDonald N, Losa CG. A sociotechnical model of the flight crew task. Human factors. 2014;56(8):1337–1363. doi: 10.1177/0018720814532684.
    1. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. 2011.
    1. Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, Shinohara K, Perez N, Greene KL, et al. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193(3):807–811. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.094.
    1. Dall'Era MA, Cooperberg MR, Chan JM, Davies BJ, Albertsen PC, Klotz LH, et al. Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the current literature. Cancer. 2008;112(8):1650–1659. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23373.
    1. Ambulatory Surgery Data Encounter Summary Report . Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. 2018.
    1. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci. 2000;46(2):186–204. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
    1. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research. Washington, DC: Sage Publications; 1990.
    1. Pietzak EJ, Van Arsdalen K, Patel K, Malkowicz SB, Wein AJ, Guzzo TJ. Impact of race on selecting appropriate patients for active surveillance with seemingly low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2015;85(2):436–441. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.09.065.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit