Aligning Interdisciplinary Healthcare Team Behavior with Workflow Execution: An Example of a Radical Prostatectomy Workflow

Operationalizing care delivery through an interdisciplinary healthcare team (IHT) requires knowledge about the overall structure of an IHT and the behavioral rules that "control" the dynamics of this structure interpreted as team and clinical leadership maintenance and task allocation. While progress has been made in understanding IHT structure, there is less work on the behavioral aspects of an IHT associated with its dynamics. In this paper we fill this void by extending our Team and Workflow Management Framework (TWMF) with a set of rules to operationalize IHT behavior in terms of clinical leadership, coordination of workflow execution over multiple days as part of continuity of care, and management of tasks, including urgent ones that prevent planned workflow execution. We briefly describe a proof-of-concept implementation of extended TWMF in the form of a computer system for supporting cooperative execution of clinical workflows by an IHT. The system is built on top of an existing business workflow execution engine and employs behavioral rules to control the IHT behavior. We also illustrate the operations of TWMF in a case study where an IHT is executing a workflow for the management of post-operative inpatient recovery after radical prostatectomy

Conceptual and practical challenges for implementing the communities of practice model on a national scale - a Canadian cancer control initiative

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cancer program delivery, like the rest of health care in Canada, faces two ongoing challenges: to coordinate a pan-Canadian approach across complex provincial jurisdictions, and to facilitate the rapid translation of knowledge into clinical practice. Communities of practice, or CoPs, which have been described by Etienne Wenger as a collaborative learning platform, represent a promising solution to these challenges because they rely on bottom-up rather than top-down social structures for integrating knowledge and practice across regions and agencies. The communities of practice model has been realized in the corporate (e.g., Royal Dutch Shell, Xerox, IBM, etc) and development (e.g., World Bank) sectors, but its application to health care is relatively new. The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) is exploring the potential of Wenger's concept in the Canadian health care context. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of Wenger's concept with a focus on its applicability to the health care sector.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Empirical studies and social science theory are used to examine the utility of Wenger's concept. Its value lies in emphasizing learning from peers and through practice in settings where innovation is valued. Yet the communities of practice concept lacks conceptual clarity because Wenger defines it so broadly and sidelines issues of decision making within CoPs. We consider the implications of his broad definition to establishing an informed nomenclature around this specific type of collaborative group. The CoP Project under CPAC and communities of practice in Canadian health care are discussed.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>The use of communities of practice in Canadian health care has been shown in some instances to facilitate quality improvements, encourage buy in among participants, and generate high levels of satisfaction with clinical leadership and knowledge translation among participating physicians. Despite these individual success stories, more information is required on how group decisions are made and applied to the practice world in order to leverage the potential of Wenger's concept more fully, and advance the science of knowledge translation within an accountability framework.</p

Rh discrepancies caused by variable reactivity of partial and weak D types with different serologic techniques

RhD discrepancies between current and historical results are problematic to resolve. The investigation of 10 discrepancies is reported here. STUDY DESIGN: Samples identified were those that reacted by automated gel technology and were negative with an FDA-approved reagent. Reactivity with a commercially available panel of monoclonal anti-D was performed. Genomic DNA was evaluated for RHD alleles with multiplex RHD exon polymerase chain reaction (PCR), weak D PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism, and RHD exon 5 and 7 sequence analyses. RESULTS: The monoclonal anti-D panel identified two samples as DVa, yet possessed the DAR allele. Two weak D Type 1 samples had a similar monoclonal anti-D profile, but only one reacted directly with one of two FDA-approved anti-D. Only two of four weak D Type 2 samples reacted directly with one FDA-approved anti-D, and their D epitope profile differed. CONCLUSIONS: The monoclonal anti-D reagents did not distinguish between partial and weak D Types 1 and 2. Weak D Types 1 and 2 do not show consistent reactivity with FDA-approved reagents and technology. To limit anti-D alloimmunization, it is recommended that samples yielding an immediate-spin tube test cutoff score of not more than 5 (i.e., ≤1+ agglutination) or a score of not more than 8 (i.e., ≤2+ hemagglutination) by gel technology be considered D– for transfusion and Rh immune globulin prophylaxis. That tube test anti-D reagents react poorly with some Weak D Types 1 and 2 red cells is problematic, inasmuch as they should be considered D+ for transfusion and prenatal care. Molecular tests that distinguish common partial and Weak D types provide the solution to resolving D antigen discrepancies.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75591/1/j.1537-2995.2007.01551.x.pd

How and why are communities of practice established in the healthcare sector? A systematic review of the literature

Background: Communities of Practice (CoPs) are promoted in the healthcare sector as a means of generating and sharing knowledge and improving organisational performance. However CoPs vary considerably in the way they are structured and operate in the sector. If CoPs are to be cultivated to benefit healthcare organisations, there is a need to examine and understand their application to date. To this end, a systematic review of the literature on CoPs was conducted, to examine how and why CoPs have been established and whether they have been shown to improve healthcare practice. Methods. Peer-reviewed empirical research papers on CoPs in the healthcare sector were identified by searching electronic health-databases. Information on the purpose of establishing CoPs, their composition, methods by which members communicate and share information or knowledge, and research methods used to examine effectiveness was extracted and reviewed. Also examined was evidence of whether or not CoPs led to a change in healthcare practice. Results: Thirty-one primary research papers and two systematic reviews were identified and reviewed in detail. There was a trend from descriptive to evaluative research. The focus of CoPs in earlier publications was on learning and exchanging information and knowledge, whereas in more recently published research, CoPs were used more as a tool to improve clinical practice and to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based practice. Means by which members communicated with each other varied, but in none of the primary research studies was the method of communication examined in terms of the CoP achieving its objectives. Researchers are increasing their efforts to assess the effectiveness of CoPs in healthcare, however the interventions have been complex and multifaceted, making it difficult to directly attribute the change to the CoP. Conclusions: In keeping with Wenger and colleagues' description, CoPs in the healthcare sector vary in form and purpose. While researchers are increasing their efforts to examine the impact of CoPs in healthcare, cultivating CoPs to improve healthcare performance requires a greater understanding of how to establish and support CoPs to maximise their potential to improve healthcare

OV21/PETROC: A randomized Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup phase II study of intraperitoneal versus intravenous chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and optimal debulking surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer

Background: The purpose of this multistage, adaptively, designed randomized phase II study was to evaluate the role of intraperitoneal (i.p.) chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and optimal debulking surgery in women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). // Patients and methods: We carried out a multicenter, two-stage, phase II trial. Eligible patients with stage IIB–IVA EOC treated with platinum-based intravenous (i.v.) NACT followed by optimal (<1 cm) debulking surgery were randomized to one of the three treatment arms: (i) i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel, (ii) i.p. cisplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel, or (iii) i.p. carboplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel. The primary end point was 9-month progressive disease rate (PD9). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). // Results: Between 2009 and 2015, 275 patients were randomized; i.p. cisplatin containing arm did not progress beyond the first stage of the study after failing to meet the pre-set superiority rule. The final analysis compared i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel (n = 101) with i.p. carboplatin, i.v./i.p. paclitaxel (n = 102). The intention to treat PD9 was lower in the i.p. carboplatin arm compared with the i.v. carboplatin arm: 24.5% (95% CI 16.2% to 32.9%) versus 38.6% (95% CI 29.1% to 48.1%) P = 0.065. The study was underpowered to detect differences in PFS: HR PFS 0.82 (95% CI 0.57–1.17); P = 0.27 and OS HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.47–1.35) P = 0.40. The i.p. carboplatin-based regimen was well tolerated with no reduction in QOL or increase in toxicity compared with i.v. administration alone. // Conclusion: In women with stage IIIC or IVA EOC treated with NACT and optimal debulking surgery, i.p. carboplatin-based chemotherapy is well tolerated and associated with an improved PD9 compared with i.v. carboplatin-based chemotherapy. // Clinical trial number: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01622543

Early growth response gene-2 (Egr-2) regulates the development of B and T cells

The study was supported by Arthritis Research UK. Copyright @ 2011 Li et al.BACKGROUND: Understanding of how transcription factors are involved in lymphocyte development still remains a challenge. It has been shown that Egr-2 deficiency results in impaired NKT cell development and defective positive selection of T cells. Here we investigated the development of T, B and NKT cells in Egr-2 transgenic mice and the roles in the regulation of distinct stages of B and T cell development. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The expression of Egr1, 2 and 3 were analysed at different stages of T and B cell development by RT-PCT and results showed that the expression was strictly regulated at different stages. Forced expression of Egr-2 in CD2+ lymphocytes resulted in a severe reduction of CD4+CD8+ (DP) cells in thymus and pro-B cells in bone marrow, which was associated with reduced expression of Notch1 in ISP thymocytes and Pax5 in pro-B cells, suggesting that retraction of Egr-2 at the ISP and pro-B cell stages is important for the activation of lineage differentiation programs. In contrast to reduction of DP and pro-B cells, Egr-2 enhanced the maturation of DP cells into single positive (SP) T and NKT cells in thymus, and immature B cells into mature B cells in bone marrow. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that Egr-2 expressed in restricted stages of lymphocyte development plays a dynamic, but similar role for the development of T, NKT and B cells.This article is provided by the Brunel Open Access publishing fund

A realist evaluation of the role of communities of practice in changing healthcare practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Healthcare organisations seeking to manage knowledge and improve organisational performance are increasingly investing in communities of practice (CoPs). Such investments are being made in the absence of empirical evidence demonstrating the impact of CoPs in improving the delivery of healthcare. A realist evaluation is proposed to address this knowledge gap. Underpinned by the principle that outcomes are determined by the context in which an intervention is implemented, a realist evaluation is well suited to understand the role of CoPs in improving healthcare practice. By applying a realist approach, this study will explore the following questions: What outcomes do CoPs achieve in healthcare? Do these outcomes translate into improved practice in healthcare? What are the contexts and mechanisms by which CoPs improve healthcare?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The realist evaluation will be conducted by developing, testing, and refining theories on how, why, and when CoPs improve healthcare practice. When collecting data, context will be defined as the setting in which the CoP operates; mechanisms will be the factors and resources that the community offers to influence a change in behaviour or action; and outcomes will be defined as a change in behaviour or work practice that occurs as a result of accessing resources provided by the CoP.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Realist evaluation is being used increasingly to study social interventions where context plays an important role in determining outcomes. This study further enhances the value of realist evaluations by incorporating a social network analysis component to quantify the structural context associated with CoPs. By identifying key mechanisms and contexts that optimise the effectiveness of CoPs, this study will contribute to creating a framework that will guide future establishment and evaluation of CoPs in healthcare.</p