MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412654470 · doi:10.1097/xcs.0000000000001532

Mapping Implementation Strategies to Address Barriers to Commission on Cancer Accreditation Standards in Breast Surgery

2025· article· en· W4412654470 on OpenAlexaff
Jamie Hillas, Meagan Elam, Rachel Moyal‐Smith, Tasleem J. Padamsee, Sarah A. Birken, Mary Brindle, Ko Un Park

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Surgeons · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Imaging in Medicine
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's Hospital
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineAccreditationCommissionBreast cancerGeneral surgeryMedical physicsFamily medicineMedical educationCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) introduced synoptic operative reports (SOR) as accreditation standards to increase adherence to cancer surgical standards. Due to large variations in implementation of past CoC accreditation standards, we used a theory-informed method to identify optimal implementation strategies for SOR integration. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted semi-structured interviews from December 2021-May 2022 focused on implementing the breast SOR with 31 stakeholders sampled from 4 CoC sites. Implementation barriers were mapped to theory-informed strategies using the validated CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) matching tool. Using the "name it, define it, specify it" method for describing implementation strategies, actions, actors, and action targets were specified for each correlating ERIC cluster and strategy. RESULTS: Participants included 10 surgeons, 4 cancer liaison physicians, 11 cancer program administrators, and 6 IT engineers. Strategies addressing the most common barriers were 1) determining readiness to implement the SOR; 2) identifying champions to promote the SOR; and 3) having stakeholder discussions to highlight the importance of templated documentation and determine whether the SOR will adequately address this. The common themes across the top strategies were workflow changes, developing an actionable plan, engaging champions, and leveraging champion relationships with other surgeons. Training and educating stakeholders was not a key recommended strategy in our study. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that assessment of workflow changes along with local champions and their relationship with surgeons were the most important strategies for successful SOR implementation. Programs may benefit from utilizing these strategies for future SOR implementation and CoC initiatives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.082
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.140
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0820.140
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of SurgeonsSame topicDigital Imaging in MedicineFrench-language works237,207