Hysterectomy at a Canadian tertiary care facility: results of a one year retrospective review

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the indications for and approach to hysterectomy at Kingston General Hospital (KGH), a teaching hospital affiliated with Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario. In particular, in light of current literature and government standards suggesting the superiority of vaginal versus abdominal approaches and a high number of concurrent oophorectomies, the aim was to examine the circumstances in which concurrent oophorectomies were performed and to compare abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective chart audit of 372 consecutive hysterectomies performed in 2001 was completed. Data regarding patient characteristics, process of care and outcomes were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests and linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: Average age was 48.5 years, mean body mass index (BMI) was 28.6, the mean length of stay (LOS) was 5.2 days using an abdominal approach and 3.0 days using a vaginal approach without laparoscopy. 14% of hysterectomies were performed vaginally, 5.9% were laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomies and the rest were abdominal hysterectomies. The most common indication was dysfunctional or abnormal uterine bleeding (37%). The average age of those that had an oophorectomy (removal of both ovaries) was 50.8 years versus 44.3 years for those that did not (p < .05). Factors associated with LOS included surgical approach, age and the number of concurrent procedures. CONCLUSIONS: A significant reduction in LOS was found using the vaginal approach. Both the patient and the health care system may benefit from the tendency towards an increased use of vaginal hysterectomies. The audit process demonstrated the usefulness of an on-going review mechanism to examine trends associated with common surgical procedures

Family physicians' perspectives on practice guidelines related to cancer control

BACKGROUND: Family physicians (FPs) play an important role in cancer control. While FPs' attitudes towards, and use of guidelines in general have been explored, no study has looked at the needs of FPs with respect to guidelines for the continuum of cancer control. The objective of this study was to understand which guideline topics FPs consider important. METHODS: Five group interviews were conducted by telephone with FPs from across Ontario, Canada. Transcripts were analyzed inductively. Content analysis identified emergent themes. Themes are illustrated by representative quotes taken from the transcripts. RESULTS: The main areas where FPs felt guidelines were needed most included screening – a traditional area of responsibility for FPs – and treatment and follow-up – areas where they felt they lacked the knowledge to best support patients. Confusion over best practice when faced with conflicting guidelines varied according to disease site. FPs defined good guideline formats; the most often cited forms of presentation were tear-off sheets to use interactively with patients, or a binder. Computer-based dissemination was acknowledged as the best way of widely distributing material that needs frequent updates. However, until computer use is a common aspect of practice, mail was considered the most viable method of dissemination. Guidelines designed for use by patients were supported by FPs. CONCLUSIONS: Preferred guideline topics, format, dissemination methods and role of patient guidelines identified by FPs in this study reflect the nature of their practice situations. Guideline developers and those supporting use of evidence-based guidelines (e.g., Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control) have a responsibility to ensure that FPs are provided with the resources they identify as important, and to provide them in a format that will best support their use

Organizational Guidance for the Care of Patients with Head-and-Neck Cancer in Ontario

Background: At the request of the Head and Neck Cancers Advisory Committee of Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), a working group and expert panel of clinicians with expertise in the management of head-and-neck cancer developed the present guideline. The purpose of the guideline is to provide advice about the organization and delivery of health care services for adult patients with head-and-neck cancer. Methods: This document updates the recommendations published in the Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) 2009 organizational guideline The Management of Head and Neck Cancer in Ontario. The guideline development methods included an updated literature search, internal review by content and methodology experts, and external review by relevant health care providers and potential users. Results: To ensure that all patients have access to the highest standard of care available in Ontario, the guideline establishes the minimum requirements to maintain a head-and-neck disease site program. Recommendations are made about the membership of core and extended provider teams, minimum skill sets and experience of practitioners, cancer centre–specific and practitioner-specific volumes, multidisciplinary care requirements, and unique infrastructure demands. Conclusions: The recommendations contained in this document offer guidance for clinicians and institutions providing care for patients with head-and-neck cancer in Ontario, and for policymakers and other stakeholders involved in the delivery of health care services for head-and-neck cancer