A multidisciplinary team-oriented intervention to increase guideline recommended care for high-risk prostate cancer: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised implementation trial

Bernadette Brown, Jane Young, David P. Smith, Andrew B. Kneebone, Andrew J. Brooks, Sam Egger, Miranda Xhilaga, Amanda Dominello, Dianne L. O'Connell, Mary Haines

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

21 Citations (Scopus)
34 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: This study assessed whether a theoretically conceptualised tailored intervention centred on multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) increased clinician referral behaviours in line with clinical practice guideline recommendations.

Methods: Nine hospital Sites in New South Wales (NSW), Australia with a urological MDT and involvement in a state-wide urological clinical network participated in this pragmatic stepped wedge, cluster randomised implementation trial. Intervention strategies included flagging of high-risk patients by pathologists, clinical leadership, education, and audit and feedback of individuals’ and study Sites’ practices. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients referred to radiation oncology within 4 months after prostatectomy. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients discussed at a MDT meeting within 4 months after surgery; proportion of patients who consulted a radiation oncologist within 6 months; and the proportion who commenced radiotherapy within 6 months. Urologists’ attitudes towards adjuvant radiotherapy were surveyed pre- and post-intervention. A process evaluation measured intervention fidelity, response to intervention components and contextual factors that impacted on implementation and sustainability.

Results: Records for 1071 high-risk post-RP patients operated on by 37 urologists were reviewed: 505 control-phase; and 407 intervention-phase. The proportion of patients discussed at a MDT meeting increased from 17% in the control-phase to 59% in the intervention-phase (adjusted RR = 4.32; 95% CI [2.40 to 7.75]; p < 0·001). After adjustment, there was no significant difference in referral to radiation oncology (intervention 32% vs control 30%; adjusted RR = 1.06; 95% CI [0.74 to 1.51]; p = 0.879). Sites with the largest relative increases in the percentage of patients discussed also tended to have greater increases in referral (p = 0·001). In the intervention phase, urologists failed to provide referrals to more than half of patients whom the MDT had recommended for referral (78 of 140; 56%).

Conclusions: The intervention resulted in significantly more patients being discussed by a MDT. However, the recommendations from MDTs were not uniformly recorded or followed. Although practice varied markedly between MDTs, the intervention did not result in a significant overall change in referral rates, probably reflecting a lack of change in urologists’ attitudes. Our results suggest that interventions focused on structures and processes that enable health system-level change, rather than those focused on individual-level change, are likely to have the greatest effect.

Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12611001251910). Registered 6 December 2011.
Original languageEnglish
Article number43
Pages (from-to)1-14
Number of pages14
JournalImplementation Science
Volume13
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2018
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2018. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A multidisciplinary team-oriented intervention to increase guideline recommended care for high-risk prostate cancer: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised implementation trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this