Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:59:22.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring the influence of colleagues on a consultant team's use of breast conserving surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2010

Andrew R. Hoy ,
Hannah Patrick ,
Bruce Campbell  and
Georgios Lyratzopoulos
Andrew R. Hoy
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
Hannah Patrick
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
Bruce Campbell
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and Peninsula College of Medicine & Dentistry
Georgios Lyratzopoulos
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine potential reasons why the use of breast conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer varies substantially between hospital teams in England, and in particular to examine whether colleague influence has a role in influencing BCS rates locally.

Methods: Routinely collected Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data relating to 420 surgical teams in England who performed more than ten breast cancer operations during the financial year 2006/07 were used to identify predictors of team BCS use. Team BCS rates (as a proportion of all types of breast excision surgery) were subject to a regression analysis that incorporated, as independent variables, a range of patient, organizational, and local demographic factors, as well as the BCS rate of colleagues working alongside them in the same hospitals(s).

Results: After adjusting for the effects of other variables, BCS use by colleagues working in the same hospital(s) was a significant predictor of a team's own BCS rate (standardized b = 0.224; p < .001), denoting a typical 3 percent increase in a team's BCS rate for every 10 percent increase in the BCS rate of colleagues.

Conclusions: The practice of colleagues seems to have a measurable influence upon a surgical team's BCS usage. Guidance from HTA organizations can set national standards about the use of new techniques and innovations, but dissemination can be either slowed down or accelerated by the influence of local colleagues. A strategy of disseminating guidance through professional networks or “local champions” could be a powerful avenue for change.

Keywords

Diffusion of innovationInformation disseminationBreast neoplasmsBreast-conserving surgeryPractice guideline
Type
ASSESSMENTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 156 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Adelson, P, Lim, K, Churches, T, Nguyen, R. Surgical treatment of breast cancer in New South Wales 1991, 1992. Aust N Z J Surg. 1997;67:9–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Anderson, JG, Jay, SJ. The diffusion of medical technology: Social network analysis and policy research. Sociol Q. 1985;26:49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Ankem, K. Influence of information sources on the adoption of uterine fibroid embolization by interventional radiologists. J Med Libr Assoc. 2003;91:450–459.Google ScholarPubMed
4. Association of Breast Surgery at BASO; Association of Breast Surgery at BAPRAS; Training Interface Group in Breast Surgery, Oncoplastic breast surgery – a guide to good practice. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33 (Suppl 1):S1–S23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Association of Breast Surgery at BASO. Surgical guidelines for the management of breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35 (Suppl 1):1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Becker, MH. Factors affecting diffusion of innovations among health professionals. Am J Public Health. 1970;60:294–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Breast Cancer Clinical Outcome Measures (BCCOM) Project. Analysis of the management of symptomatic breast cancers diagnosed in 2004. Birmingham: West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit/Breakthrough Breast Cancer; 2007.Google Scholar
8. Charlson, ME, Pompei, P, Ales, KL, MacKenzie, CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Collins, ED, Kerrigan, CL, Anglade, P. Surgical treatment of early breast cancer: What would surgeons choose for themselves? Eff Clin Pract. 1999;2:149–151.Google ScholarPubMed
10. Cutuli, B, Lemanski, C, Fourquet, A, et al. Breast-conserving surgery with or without radiotherapy vs mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ: French survey experience. Br J Cancer. 2009;100:1048–1054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Denham, C, White, I. Differences in urban and rural Britain. Popul Trends. 1998;91:23–34.Google Scholar
12. Dixon, JM, Mak, C. Predictors of mastectomy in a certified breast center – The surgeon is an independent risk factor. Breast J. 2008;14:321–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Fedeli, U, Alba, N, Schievano, E, et al. Diffusion of good practices of care and decline of the association with case volume: The example of breast conserving surgery. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Gabbay, J, le May, A. Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed “mindlines?” Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ. 2004;329:1013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Greer, AL. The state of the art versus the state of the science: The diffusion of new medical technologies into practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1988;4:5–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Haddock, CC, Begun, JW. The diffusion of two diagnostic technologies among hospitals in New York State. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1988;4:593–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Hall, SE, Holman, CD, Hendrie, DV, Spilsbury, K. Unequal access to breast-conserving surgery in Western Australia 1982–2000. ANZ J Surg. 2004;74:413–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Hiotis, K, Ye, W, Sposro, R, Skinner, KA. Predictors of breast conservation therapy: Size is not all that matters. Cancer. 2005;103:892–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Jerome-D'Emilia, B, Begun, JW. Diffusion of breast conserving surgery in medical communities. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:143–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Johantgen, ME, Coffey, RM, Harris, DR, Levy, H, Clinton, JJ. Treating early-stage breast cancer: Hospital characteristics associated with breast-conserving surgery. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:1432–1434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Kimmick, GG, Camacho, F, Balkrishnan, R, Anderson, R. Patterns of care among breast cancer patients with financial need: Information from a Medicaid-claims and tumor registry linked database. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23 (Suppl):6037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Kirby, RM, Basit, A, Manimaran, N. Patient choice significantly affects mastectomy rates in the treatment of breast cancer. Int Semin Surg Oncol. 2008;5:20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Lacey, T. NICE implementation uptake report: Pimecrolimus and tacrolimus for atopic eczema. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2007.Google Scholar
24. Laliberte, L, Fennell, ML, Papandonatos, G. The relationship of membership in research networks to compliance with treatment guidelines for early-stage breast cancer. Med Care. 2005;43:471–479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Lazovich, D, Solomon, CC, Thomas, DB, Moe, RE, White, E. Breast conservation therapy in the United States following the 1990 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on the treatment of patients with early stage invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1999;86:628–637.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Mandelblatt, JS, Berg, CD, Meropol, NJ, et al. Measuring and predicting surgeons’ practice styles for breast cancer treatment in older women. Med Care. 2001;39:228–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. McGettigan, P, Golden, J, Fryer, J, Chan, R, Feely, J. Prescribers prefer people: The sources of information used by doctors for prescribing suggest that the medium is more important than the message. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;51:184–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Improving outcomes in breast cancer: Manual update. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2002.Google Scholar
29. National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit Team. A national audit of provision and outcomes of mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery for women in England and Wales: First annual report. Leeds: The NHS Information Centre for health and social care; 2008.Google Scholar
30. National Radiotherapy Advisory Group. Radiotherapy: Developing a world class service for England. London: Department of Health; 2007.Google Scholar
31. Nuttall, M, Van Der Meulen, J, Emberton, M. Charlson scores based on ICD-10 administrative data were valid in assessing comorbidity in patients undergoing urological cancer surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:265–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Riley, BL, Taylor, SM, Elliott, SJ. Determinants of implementing heart health: Promotion activities in Ontario public health units: A social ecological perspective. Health Educ Res. 2001;16:425–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Riskin, DJ, Longaker, MT, Gertner, M, Krummel, TM. Innovation in Surgery; a historical perspective. Ann Surg. 2006;244:686–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Rentzhog, L. SBU's Ambassador Program in Northern Sweden. In Jonsson, E, ed. Effective dissemination of findings from research – a compilation of essays. Alberta: Institute of Health Economics; 2008:55–67.Google Scholar
35. Sheldon, TA, Cullum, N, Dawson, D, et al. What's the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patient notes and interviews. BMJ. 2004;329:999–1007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Strang, D, Tuma, NB. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in diffusion. Am J Sociol. 1993;99:614–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Temple, WJ, Russell, ML, Parsons, LL, et al. Conservation surgery for breast cancer as the preferred choice: A prospective analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3367–3373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. The National Cancer Services Analysis Team. UK National Radiotherapy Equipment Survey. http://www.canceruk.net/rtservices/rtequip2007/ (accessed March 2009).Google Scholar
39. The NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care, Hospital Episode Statistics. [accessed 2009]. HES data is copyright © 2009, Re-used with the permission. All rights reserved.Google Scholar
40. Velikova, G, Booth, L, Johnston, C, et al. Breast cancer outcomes in South Asian population of West Yorkshire. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:1926–1932.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Zorzi, M, Puliti, D, Vettorazzi, M, et al. Mastectomy rates are decreasing in the era of service screening: A population-based study in Italy (1997–2001). Br J Cancer. 2006;95:1265–1268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Hoy et al. supplementary material

Supplementary table

Download Hoy et al. supplementary material(File)
File 77.8 KB