Cargando…
A controlled ‘before-after’ study: impact of a clinical guidelines programme and regional cancer network organization on medical practice
A regional cancer network has been set up in the Rhône-Alpes region in France. The aim of the project is to improve the quality of care and to rationalize prescriptions in the network. In this network, we assessed the impact of the implementation of a clinical practice guidelines project by assessin...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2002
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2375218/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11875690 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600057 |
_version_ | 1782154605028704256 |
---|---|
author | Ray-Coquard, I Philip, T de Laroche, G Froger, X Suchaud, J-P Voloch, A Mathieu-Daudé, H Fervers, B Farsi, F Browman, G P Chauvin, F |
author_facet | Ray-Coquard, I Philip, T de Laroche, G Froger, X Suchaud, J-P Voloch, A Mathieu-Daudé, H Fervers, B Farsi, F Browman, G P Chauvin, F |
author_sort | Ray-Coquard, I |
collection | PubMed |
description | A regional cancer network has been set up in the Rhône-Alpes region in France. The aim of the project is to improve the quality of care and to rationalize prescriptions in the network. In this network, we assessed the impact of the implementation of a clinical practice guidelines project by assessing the conformity of practice with the guidelines and comparing this with the conformity in an external matched control group from another French region without a regional cancer network. Four hospitals (private and public) accepted to assess the impact of the clinical practice guidelines on the management of breast and colon cancer in the experimental group and three hospitals (private and public) in the control group. In 1994 and 1996, women with non-metastatic breast cancer (282 and 346 patients in the experimental group, 194 and 172 patients in the control group, respectively) and all new patients with colon cancer (95 and 94 patients in the experimental group, and 89 and 118 patients in the control group, respectively) were selected. A controlled ‘before-after’ study, using institutional medical records of patients with breast and colon cancer. The medical decisions concerning the patients were analyzed to assess their compliance with the clinical practice guidelines. When medical decisions were judged to be non-compliant, we verified if they were based on scientific evidence in a published article, if they were not, the medical decision was classified as having ‘no convincing supporting scientific evidence’ The compliance rates were significantly higher in 1996 than in 1994 in the experimental group; 36% (126 out of 346) vs 12% (34 out of 282) and 46% (56 out of 123) vs 14% (14 out of 103) (P<0.001) for breast and colon cancer, respectively. Whereas, in the control group the compliance rates were the same for the two periods; 7% (12 out of 173) vs 6% (12 out of 194) (P=0.46) and 39% (49 out of 126) vs 32% (31 out of 96), P=0.19. In the experimental group, in 1994, 101 of the 282 medical decisions (36%) and 27 of the 103 (26%) for breast and colon cancer, respectively, were classified as having ‘no convincing scientific evidence’ compare with 72 out of 346 in 1996 (21%) for breast cancer, and 21 of the 123 (17%) for colon cancer P<0.05. Whereas in the control group these results were 106 out of 194 in 1994 (55%) and 90 out of 172 in 1996 (52%), P=0.65 for breast cancer and 28 out of 96 in 1994 (29%) and 30 out of 126 in 1996 (24%), P=0.36 for colon cancer. The development and implementation strategy of the clinical practice guidelines programme for cancer management results in significant changes in medical practice in our cancer network. These results would suggest that introducing guidelines with specific implementation strategy might also increase the compliance rate with the guideline and ‘evidence-based medicine’. British Journal of Cancer (2002) 86, 313–321. DOI: 10.1038/sj/bjc/6600057 www.bjcancer.com © 2002 The Cancer Research Campaign |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2375218 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2002 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-23752182009-09-10 A controlled ‘before-after’ study: impact of a clinical guidelines programme and regional cancer network organization on medical practice Ray-Coquard, I Philip, T de Laroche, G Froger, X Suchaud, J-P Voloch, A Mathieu-Daudé, H Fervers, B Farsi, F Browman, G P Chauvin, F Br J Cancer Clinical A regional cancer network has been set up in the Rhône-Alpes region in France. The aim of the project is to improve the quality of care and to rationalize prescriptions in the network. In this network, we assessed the impact of the implementation of a clinical practice guidelines project by assessing the conformity of practice with the guidelines and comparing this with the conformity in an external matched control group from another French region without a regional cancer network. Four hospitals (private and public) accepted to assess the impact of the clinical practice guidelines on the management of breast and colon cancer in the experimental group and three hospitals (private and public) in the control group. In 1994 and 1996, women with non-metastatic breast cancer (282 and 346 patients in the experimental group, 194 and 172 patients in the control group, respectively) and all new patients with colon cancer (95 and 94 patients in the experimental group, and 89 and 118 patients in the control group, respectively) were selected. A controlled ‘before-after’ study, using institutional medical records of patients with breast and colon cancer. The medical decisions concerning the patients were analyzed to assess their compliance with the clinical practice guidelines. When medical decisions were judged to be non-compliant, we verified if they were based on scientific evidence in a published article, if they were not, the medical decision was classified as having ‘no convincing supporting scientific evidence’ The compliance rates were significantly higher in 1996 than in 1994 in the experimental group; 36% (126 out of 346) vs 12% (34 out of 282) and 46% (56 out of 123) vs 14% (14 out of 103) (P<0.001) for breast and colon cancer, respectively. Whereas, in the control group the compliance rates were the same for the two periods; 7% (12 out of 173) vs 6% (12 out of 194) (P=0.46) and 39% (49 out of 126) vs 32% (31 out of 96), P=0.19. In the experimental group, in 1994, 101 of the 282 medical decisions (36%) and 27 of the 103 (26%) for breast and colon cancer, respectively, were classified as having ‘no convincing scientific evidence’ compare with 72 out of 346 in 1996 (21%) for breast cancer, and 21 of the 123 (17%) for colon cancer P<0.05. Whereas in the control group these results were 106 out of 194 in 1994 (55%) and 90 out of 172 in 1996 (52%), P=0.65 for breast cancer and 28 out of 96 in 1994 (29%) and 30 out of 126 in 1996 (24%), P=0.36 for colon cancer. The development and implementation strategy of the clinical practice guidelines programme for cancer management results in significant changes in medical practice in our cancer network. These results would suggest that introducing guidelines with specific implementation strategy might also increase the compliance rate with the guideline and ‘evidence-based medicine’. British Journal of Cancer (2002) 86, 313–321. DOI: 10.1038/sj/bjc/6600057 www.bjcancer.com © 2002 The Cancer Research Campaign Nature Publishing Group 2002-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC2375218/ /pubmed/11875690 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600057 Text en Copyright © 2002 The Cancer Research Campaign https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Ray-Coquard, I Philip, T de Laroche, G Froger, X Suchaud, J-P Voloch, A Mathieu-Daudé, H Fervers, B Farsi, F Browman, G P Chauvin, F A controlled ‘before-after’ study: impact of a clinical guidelines programme and regional cancer network organization on medical practice |
title | A controlled ‘before-after’ study: impact of a clinical guidelines programme and regional cancer network organization on medical practice |
title_full | A controlled ‘before-after’ study: impact of a clinical guidelines programme and regional cancer network organization on medical practice |
title_fullStr | A controlled ‘before-after’ study: impact of a clinical guidelines programme and regional cancer network organization on medical practice |
title_full_unstemmed | A controlled ‘before-after’ study: impact of a clinical guidelines programme and regional cancer network organization on medical practice |
title_short | A controlled ‘before-after’ study: impact of a clinical guidelines programme and regional cancer network organization on medical practice |
title_sort | controlled ‘before-after’ study: impact of a clinical guidelines programme and regional cancer network organization on medical practice |
topic | Clinical |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2375218/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11875690 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600057 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT raycoquardi acontrolledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT philipt acontrolledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT delarocheg acontrolledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT frogerx acontrolledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT suchaudjp acontrolledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT volocha acontrolledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT mathieudaudeh acontrolledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT ferversb acontrolledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT farsif acontrolledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT browmangp acontrolledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT chauvinf acontrolledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT raycoquardi controlledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT philipt controlledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT delarocheg controlledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT frogerx controlledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT suchaudjp controlledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT volocha controlledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT mathieudaudeh controlledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT ferversb controlledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT farsif controlledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT browmangp controlledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice AT chauvinf controlledbeforeafterstudyimpactofaclinicalguidelinesprogrammeandregionalcancernetworkorganizationonmedicalpractice |