Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Enhancing the performance of gastrointestinal tumour board by improving documentation
  1. Roaa Saleh Alsuhaibani1,
  2. Hajer Alzahrani2,
  3. Ghada Algwaiz2,
  4. Haneen Alfarhan2,
  5. Ashwaq Alolayan3,
  6. Nafisa Abdelhafiz3,
  7. Yosra Ali3,
  8. Abdul Rahman Jazieh3
  1. 1College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  2. 2College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  3. 3Department of Oncology, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Abdul Rahman Jazieh; jazieha{at}ngha.med.sa

Abstract

Tumour board contributes to providing better patient care by using a multidisciplinary team approach. In the efforts of evaluating the performance of the gastrointestinal tumour board at our institution, it was difficult to assess past performance due to lack of proper use of standardised documentation tool. This project aimed at improving adherence to the documentation tool and its recommendations in order to obtain performance measures for the tumour board. A multidisciplinary team and a plan were developed to improve documentation. Four rapid improvement cycles, Plan–Do–Study–Act (PDSA) cycles, were conducted. The first cycle focused on updating the case discussion summary form (CDSF) based on experts’ input and previous identified deficiencies to enhance documentation and improve performance. The second PDSA cycle aimed at incorporating the CDSF into the electronic medical records system and assessing its functionality. The third cycle was to orient and train staff on using the form and launching it. The fourth PDSA cycle aimed at assessing the ability to obtain tumour board performance measures. Adherence to completion of the CDSF improved from 82% (baseline) to 94% after the fourth PDSA cycle. Over 104 consecutive cases discussed in the tumour board between January and July 2016 and 76 cases discussed in 2015, results were as follows: adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines in 2016 was observed in 141 (95%) recommendations, while it was observed in 90 (92%) recommendations in 2015. Changes in the management plans were observed in 37 (36%) cases in 2016 and in 6 (8%) cases in 2015. Regarding tumour board recommendations, 87% were done within 3 months of tumour board discussion in 2016, while 69% were done in 2015. Implementing electronic standardised documentation tool improved communication among the team and enabled getting accurate data about performance measures of the tumour board with positive impact on healthcare process and outcomes.

  • Pdsa
  • Quality Improvement
  • Performance Measures

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors RSA participated in data collection for the whole trial, drafted and revised the paper. HAlz, GA and HAlf participated in data collection and revising the manuscript. NA and AA monitored data collection and revised the draft paper. YA designed the data collection tool, wrote the statistical analysis plan and analysed the data. ARJ initiated the project, designed the data collection tool, implemented the project for the oncology department, monitored data collection for the whole trial and revised the draft paper.

  • Funding This research received no specific grant funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.