BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in Canada and accounts for 11.9% of all cancer-related mortality. Fortunately, previous studies have provided evidence of improved outcomes from access to timely and appropriate health services along the disease trajectory in CRC. As a result, the CIHR/CCNS Team in Access to Colorectal Cancer Services in Nova Scotia (Team ACCESS) was created to build colorectal cancer (CRC) research capacity in Nova Scotia (NS) and to study access to and quality of CRC services along the entire continuum of cancer care.ObjectivesThe objectives of this paper are to: 1) provide a detailed description of the methodologies employed across the various studies being conducted by Team ACCESS; 2) demonstrate how administrative health data can be used to evaluate access and quality in CRC services; and 3) provide an example of an interdisciplinary team approach to addressing health service delivery issues.MethodsAll patients diagnosed with CRC in NS between 2001 and 2005 were identified through the Nova Scotia Cancer Registry (NSCR) and staged using the Collaborative Stage Data Collection System. Using administrative databases that were linked at the patient level, Team ACCESS created a retrospective longitudinal cohort with comprehensive demographic, clinical, and healthcare utilization data. These data were used to examine access to and quality of CRC services in NS, as well as factors affecting access to and quality of care, at various transition points along the continuum of care. Team ACCESS has also implemented integrated knowledge translation strategies targeting policy- and decision- makers.DiscussionThe development of Team ACCESS represents a unique approach to CRC research. We anticipate that the skills, tools, and knowledge generated from our work will also advance the study of other cancer disease sites in NS. Given the increasing prevalence of cancer, and with national and provincial funding agencies promoting collaborative research through increased funding for research team development, the work carried out by Team ACCESS is important in the Canadian context and exemplifies how a team approach is essential to comprehensively addressing issues surrounding not only cancer, but other chronic diseases in Canada.

BackgroundAdequate nodal harvest (≥ 12 lymph nodes) in colorectal cancer has been shown to optimize staging and proposed as a quality indicator of colorectal cancer care. An audit within a single health district in Nova Scotia, Canada presented and published in 2002, revealed that adequate nodal harvest occurred in only 22% of patients. The goal of this current study was to identify factors associated with adequate nodal harvest, and specifically to examine the impact of the audit and feedback strategy on nodal harvest.MethodsThis population-based study included all patients undergoing resection for primary colorectal cancer in Nova Scotia, Canada, from 01 January 2001 to 31 December 2005. Linkage of the provincial cancer registry with other databases (hospital discharge, physician claims data, and national census data) provided clinicodemographic, diagnostic, and treatment-event data. Factors associated with adequate nodal harvest were examined using multivariate logistic regression. The specific interaction between year and health district was examined to identify any potential effect of dissemination of the previously-performed audit.ResultsAmong the 2,322 patients, the median nodal harvest was 8; overall, 719 (31%) had an adequate nodal harvest. On multivariate analysis, audited health district (p < 0.0001), year (p < 0.0001), younger age (p < 0.0001), non-emergent surgery (p < 0.0001), more advanced stage (p = 0.008), and previous cancer history (p = 0.03) were associated with an increased likelihood of an adequate nodal harvest. Interaction between year and audited health district was identified (p = 0.006) such that the increase in adequate nodal harvest over time was significantly greater in the audited health district.ConclusionsImprovements in colorectal cancer nodal harvest did occur over time. A published audit demonstrating suboptimal nodal harvest appeared to be an effective knowledge translation tool, though more so for the audited health district, suggesting a potentially beneficial effect of audit and feedback strategies.

Although improvements in the rate of adequate nodal harvest did occur over time, no corresponding meaningful improvement in clinical outcomes was noted. Given the need that quality indicators not only be associated with outcome, but also that outcome improves as such indicators are optimized, this study questions the inclusion of a nodal harvest≥12 lymph nodes as a quality indicator of colorectal cancer care.

BackgroundWhile efforts to improve cancer outcomes have typically focused on improving quality of care, recently, a growing emphasis has been placed on timely access to quality cancer care. This retrospective cohort study examines, at a population level, the relationship between quality and timeliness of colorectal cancer (CRC) care in a single Canadian province (Nova Scotia). Through the provincial cancer registry, we identified all residents diagnosed with invasive CRC between 2001 and 2005 that underwent a non-emergent resection. Using anonymized administrative databases that are individually linked at the patient level, we obtained clinicodemographic, diagnostic, and treatment event data. Selected charts were reviewed to ensure completeness of chemotherapy data.Performance on six quality indicators and the percentage of patients achieving wait-time benchmarks for diagnosis, surgery, and adjuvant therapy were calculated. The relationship between quality indicators and wait-time benchmarks was examined using logistic regression.ResultsWhere an association was identified, patients who received ‘higher quality care’ had longer wait times. Individuals who received a complete preoperative colonoscopy were less likely to meet benchmarks for time from presentation to diagnosis and from diagnosis to surgery. Those who received an appropriate radiation oncology consultation were less likely to meet benchmarks for time from diagnosis to surgery and from surgery to adjuvant therapy.ConclusionsAs governments and other organizations move forward with strategies to reduce wait times, they must also focus on how to define and monitor quality care, and consider the relationship between these two dimensions of health care. Similarly, when developing quality improvement initiatives, the impact on resource utilization and potential to create longer waits for care must be considered.

No abstract