Mapping Implementation Strategies to Address Barriers to Commission on Cancer Accreditation Standards in Breast Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".