Abstract P3-10-10: Planning and implementation of two regional one-stop breast health centres within a large geographic health authority: Outcomes and quality improvements in health service delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interrogative examination of wait times for the pathway steps leading to diagnosis, surgical treatment, and oncology consultation for breast cancer within a geographically dispersed publically funded health authority led to advocacy for and establishment of two large one-stop Breast Health Centres (BHCs) within the largest urban cities. One year after publication of the 2000 EUSOMA guidelines for breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, regional breast cancer pathways and wait times did not meet guidelines. Population median wait time from date of first investigation to tissue diagnosis was 2.7 or 5.9 weeks (for clinical presentation or screen presentation respectively), 6.0/7.0 weeks to definitive surgical intervention, and 14.3/11.7 weeks to oncology consultation. Only 39 % of patients were diagnosed initially via core needle biopsy. 5 % of patients underwent immediate reconstructive surgery. Due to wait times for initial imaging (mammogram, ultrasound) at hospital facilities, baseline imaging was often performed at private imaging labs without needle diagnostic capability, and repeated again with a series of wait times at the hospitals - as the initial community images were not accessible to the hospital interventional radiologists. Smaller communities and their hospitals maintained shorter wait times in comparison to the large urban centres. Repeat population based measurement in 2009 indicated wait times were unchanged, and MRI guided biopsy was still not available within the region. Nursing support and patient education re breast cancer prognosis and treatment was not available until the time of oncology consultation. BHCs were planned, funded by the Ministry of Health, established in physical conjunction with the breast screening programs, and became operational as of early 2012. During the first year of BHC operation, population median wait time from date of first investigation was 2.0 weeks for tissue diagnosis, 6.4 weeks for final definitive surgical intervention, and 9.4 weeks for oncology consultation. 90 % of patients were initially diagnosed via initial core needle biopsy with IHC staining for ER, PR, and HER2. Patients served by the BHCs had nurse navigator support and education from time of presentation. The surgical team overcame regional surgical wait time barriers such as available admission beds by establishing the first comprehensive population-based outpatient mastectomy and reconstruction program in Canada with over 1200 performed to date. These wait times have been maintained in spite of increase in the HA population from 1.2 million to 1.6 million during the project timeline. Citation Format: Martin LA, Janzen R, Wong F, Doris P. Planning and implementation of two regional one-stop breast health centres within a large geographic health authority: Outcomes and quality improvements in health service delivery [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-10-10.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".