Exploring the interpersonal-, organization-, and system-level factors that influence the implementation and use of an innovation-synoptic reporting-in cancer care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The dominant method of reporting findings from diagnostic and surgical procedures is the narrative report. In cancer care, this report inconsistently provides the information required to understand the cancer and make informed patient care decisions. Another method of reporting, the synoptic report, captures specific data items in a structured manner and contains only items critical for patient care. Research demonstrates that synoptic reports vastly improve the quality of reporting. However, synoptic reporting represents a complex innovation in cancer care, with implementation and use requiring fundamental shifts in physician behaviour and practice, and support from the organization and larger system. The objective of this study is to examine the key interpersonal, organizational, and system-level factors that influence the implementation and use of synoptic reporting in cancer care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study involves three initiatives in Nova Scotia, Canada, that have implemented synoptic reporting within their departments/programs. Case study methodology will be used to study these initiatives (the cases) in-depth, explore which factors were barriers or facilitators of implementation and use, examine relationships amongst factors, and uncover which factors appear to be similar and distinct across cases. The cases were selected as they converge and differ with respect to factors that are likely to influence the implementation and use of an innovation in practice. Data will be collected through in-depth interviews, document analysis, observation of training sessions, and examination/use of the synoptic reporting tools. An audit will be performed to determine/quantify use. Analysis will involve production of a case record/history for each case, in-depth analysis of each case, and cross-case analysis, where findings will be compared and contrasted across cases to develop theoretically informed, generalisable knowledge that can be applied to other settings/contexts. Ethical approval was granted for this study.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study will contribute to our knowledge base on the multi-level factors, and the relationships amongst factors in specific contexts, that influence implementation and use of innovations such as synoptic reporting in healthcare. Such knowledge is critical to improving our understanding of implementation processes in clinical settings, and to helping researchers, clinicians, and managers/administrators develop and implement ways to more effectively integrate innovations into routine clinical care.</p

Evacetrapib and Cardiovascular Outcomes in High-Risk Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: The cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib substantially raises the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, reduces the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, and enhances cellular cholesterol efflux capacity. We sought to determine the effect of evacetrapib on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with high-risk vascular disease. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we enrolled 12,092 patients who had at least one of the following conditions: an acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 to 365 days, cerebrovascular atherosclerotic disease, peripheral vascular arterial disease, or diabetes mellitus with coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either evacetrapib at a dose of 130 mg or matching placebo, administered daily, in addition to standard medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was the first occurrence of any component of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: At 3 months, a 31.1% decrease in the mean LDL cholesterol level was observed with evacetrapib versus a 6.0% increase with placebo, and a 133.2% increase in the mean HDL cholesterol level was seen with evacetrapib versus a 1.6% increase with placebo. After 1363 of the planned 1670 primary end-point events had occurred, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be terminated early because of a lack of efficacy. After a median of 26 months of evacetrapib or placebo, a primary end-point event occurred in 12.9% of the patients in the evacetrapib group and in 12.8% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.11; P=0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Although the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib had favorable effects on established lipid biomarkers, treatment with evacetrapib did not result in a lower rate of cardiovascular events than placebo among patients with high-risk vascular disease. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ACCELERATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01687998 .)

Modification of saccadic gain by reinforcement

Control of saccadic gain is often viewed as a simple compensatory process in which gain is adjusted over many trials by the postsaccadic retinal error, thereby maintaining saccadic accuracy. Here, we propose that gain might also be changed by a reinforcement process not requiring a visual error. To test this hypothesis, we used experimental paradigms in which retinal error was removed by extinguishing the target at the start of each saccade and either an auditory tone or the vision of the target on the fovea was provided as reinforcement after those saccades that met an amplitude criterion. These reinforcement procedures caused a progressive change in saccade amplitude in nearly all subjects, although the rate of adaptation differed greatly among subjects. When we reversed the contingencies and reinforced those saccades landing closer to the original target location, saccade gain changed back toward normal gain in most subjects. When subjects had saccades adapted first by reinforcement and a week later by conventional intrasaccadic step adaptation, both paradigms yielded similar degrees of gain changes and similar transfer to new amplitudes and to new starting positions of the target step as well as comparable rates of recovery. We interpret these changes in saccadic gain in the absence of postsaccadic retinal error as showing that saccade adaptation is not controlled by a single error signal. More generally, our findings suggest that normal saccade adaptation might involve general learning mechanisms rather than only specialized mechanisms for motor calibration