METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at six tertiary centers in Malaysia. All women with newly diagnosed breast cancer were interviewed, and a medical records review was conducted using a structured questionnaire. The BCC timeliness framework showed that the total time between a woman discovering their first breast changes and the date of initial treatment was divided into three distinct intervals: presentation interval, diagnostic interval, and treatment interval. Four diagnosis subintervals, referral, biopsy, report, and diagnosis resolution intervals, were also looked into.
RESULTS: The BCC timeliness framework was used to capture important time points. The median total time, presentation interval, diagnostic interval, and treatment interval were 4.9 months (range, 1 month to 10 years), 2.4 months (range, 7 days to 10 years), 26 days (range, 4 days to 9.3 months), and 21 days (range, 1 day to 7.2 months), respectively. Meanwhile, the median time for the diagnosis subinterval of referral, biopsy, report, and diagnosis resolution was 8 days (range, 0 day to 8 months), 0 day (range, 0 day to 20 days), 7 days (range, 3 days to 3.5 months), and 4 days (range, 1 day to 1.8 months), respectively.
CONCLUSION: The BCC timeliness framework is based on the current sequenced trajectory of the BCC journey. Clarity in the measurement of timeliness provides a standardized language for monitoring and outcome research. It can serve as a quality indicator for community and hospital-based breast cancer programs.
RESULTS: Quality Implementation Framework (QIF) was adopted to develop the breast cancer module as part of the in-house EMR system used at UMMC, called i-Pesakit©. The completion of the i-Pesakit© Breast Cancer Module requires management of clinical data electronically, integration of clinical data from multiple internal clinical departments towards setting up of a research focused patient data governance model. The 14 QIF steps were performed in four main phases involved in this study which are (i) initial considerations regarding host setting, (ii) creating structure for implementation, (iii) ongoing structure once implementation begins, and (iv) improving future applications. The architectural framework of the module incorporates both clinical and research needs that comply to the Personal Data Protection Act.
CONCLUSION: The completion of the UMMC i-Pesakit© Breast Cancer Module required populating EMR including management of clinical data access, establishing information technology and research focused governance model and integrating clinical data from multiple internal clinical departments. This multidisciplinary collaboration has enhanced the quality of data capture in clinical service, benefited hospital data monitoring, quality assurance, audit reporting and research data management, as well as a framework for implementing a responsive EMR for a clinical and research organization in a typical middle-income country setting. Future applications include establishing integration with external organization such as the National Registration Department for mortality data, reporting of institutional data for national cancer registry as well as data mining for clinical research. We believe that integration of multiple clinical visit data sources provides a more comprehensive, accurate and real-time update of clinical data to be used for epidemiological studies and audits.
METHODS: We surveyed one key stakeholder from each of 27 countries with expertise in survivorship care on questions including the components/structure of follow-up care, delivery of treatment summaries and survivorship care plans, and involvement of primary care in survivorship. Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize results across countries and variations between the WHO income categories (low, middle, high). We also performed a qualitative content analysis of narratives related to survivorship care challenges to identify major themes.
RESULTS: Seven low- or /lower-middle-income countries (LIC/LMIC), seven upper-middle-income countries (UMIC), and 13 high-income countries (HICs) were included in this study. Results indicate that 44.4% of countries with a National Cancer Control Plan currently address survivorship care. Additional findings indicate that HICs use guidelines more often than those in LICs/LMICs and UMICs. There was great variation among countries regardless of income level. Common challenges include issues with workforce, communication and care coordination, distance/transportation issues, psychosocial support, and lack of focus on follow-up care.
CONCLUSION: This information can guide researchers, providers, and policy makers in efforts to improve the quality of survivorship care on a national and global basis. As the number of cancer survivors increases globally, countries will need to prioritize their long-term needs. Future efforts should focus on efforts to bridge oncology and primary care, building international partnerships, and implementation of guidelines.