Piloting a Regional Collaborative in Cancer Surgery Using a “Community of Practice” Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients requiring assessment for cancer surgery encounter a complex series of steps in their cancer journey. Further complicating the process is the fact that care is often delivered in a fragmented, silo-based system. Isolated strategies to improve cancer outcomes within those systems have had inconsistent results. METHODS: A regional quality improvement collaborative was developed based on a community of practice (cop) platform, a hub-and-spoke infrastructure, and a regional steering committee linking cop improvement projects with affiliated hospitals and their strategic priorities. The cop provided an avenue for multidisciplinary teams to collect and compare their performance data and to institute regional standards through literature review, discussion, and consensus. Regional interdisciplinary teams developed a set of quality indicators linked to mutually agreed-upon care standards. A limited regional database supported feedback about performance against both provincial and regional standards. RESULTS: The cop approach helped to develop a multihospital collaboration that facilitated care quality improvements on a regional scale, with clinical outcomes of the improvements able to be measured. The 9 participating hospitals delivered cancer surgery in the specific disease sites according to practitioner-developed and provincially- or regionally-generated care standards and clinical pathways. Compliance with provincial evidence-based clinical guidelines improved (20% increase in 2010-2011 compared with 2006-2007). Other significant improvements included standardization and implementation of regional perioperative pathways in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer disease sites; rectal cancer surgery centralization; increased use of sentinel lymph node biopsies in breast cancer surgery; and decreased positive surgical margin rates in prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Improved quality is likely a result of diverse confounding factors. The deliberately cultivated multihospital multidisciplinary cops have contributed to positive structural and functional change in cancer surgery in the region. This regional cop model has the potential to play an important role in the development of successful collaborations in care quality improvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".