Early Warning Score (EWS) systems are tools that use alterations in vital signs to rapidly identify clinically deteriorating patients and escalate care accordingly. Since its conception in 1997, EWSs have been used in several settings, including the general inpatient ward, intensive care units, and the emergency department. Several iterations of EWSs have been developed with varying levels of sensitivity and specificity for use in different populations. There are multiple strengths of these tools, including their simplicity and their ability to standardize communication and to reduce inappropriate or delayed referrals to the intensive care unit. Although early identification of deteriorating patients in the oncology population is vital to reduce morbidity and mortality and to improve long-term prognosis, the application in the oncology setting has been limited. Patients with an oncological diagnosis are usually older, medically complex, and can have increased susceptibility to infections, end-organ damage, and death. A search using PubMed and Scopus was conducted for articles published between January 1997 and November 2020 pertaining to EWSs in the oncology setting. Seven relevant studies were identified and analyzed. The most commonly used EWS in this setting was the Modified Early Warning Score. Of the seven studies, only two included prospective validation of the EWS in the oncology population and the other five only included a retrospective assessment of the data. The majority of studies were limited by their small sample size, single-institution analysis, and retrospective nature. Future studies should assess dynamic changes in scores over time and evaluate balance measures to identify use of health care resources.
21 Background: The Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign launched in 2012 includes oncology-related recommendations (CWR) aimed at promoting evidence-based care and de-implementing low value practices; however, it remains unclear to what extent practice has changed as a result of the campaign. We undertook a scoping review to evaluate the extent of CWR uptake in oncology, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Emcare Nursing and Scopus was conducted for articles published between 2012 and March 6, 2020 pertaining to cancer-specific CWR. Articles were excluded if they did not report on cancer-specific recommendations, were commentaries/opinions, reported on screening or prevention, focused on pediatric populations, or were not in English. Retained articles were thematically grouped based on study objective. Implementation strategies, barriers and facilitators were summarized for articles implementing a recommendation into practice. Results: The search yielded 8565 articles; 98 articles were retained, addressing 32 unique recommendations. Use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer (14/98) and reduction of imaging in early breast cancer (13/98) were the most commonly evaluated CWR. Of the 29 articles reporting on pre-post CW campaign adherence, 20 reported improved compliance without further intervention. In articles evaluating factors associated with CWR-concordance (62/98), age (23/62), stage or risk (22/62), and geographic location (21/62) most commonly influenced care decisions. Few articles described the development of interventions to improve concordance (1/98) or a protocol to evaluate implementation (2/98) with no further testing of their design. Of the 10/98 articles that evaluated implementation of a CWR, all reported improved compliance (range: 3-73% improvement). Implementation strategies were used in combination and most often included provider education (8/10), stakeholder engagement (6/10), and forced function (4/10). Preconceived views and reluctance to adopt new practices were the most commonly reported barriers to implementation; the use of technology to update practice and the use of education and evidence to build provider buy-in were the most common facilitators. Conclusions: In the eight years since the initial publication of oncology-specific CW recommendations, uptake has been limited. Publication of the recommendations has resulted in some passive improvements in care. Further adoption of CWR likely requires an implementation strategy that includes building stakeholder buy-in, and utilization of updated order sets and forced functions in technology to facilitate change. Future studies should assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the adoption of CWR and the de-implementation of low-value care.
The Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign, launched in 2012, includes oncology-specific recommendations to promote evidence-based care and deimplementation of low-value practices. However, it is unclear to what extent the campaign has prompted practice change. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the uptake of cancer-specific CW recommendations focusing on the period before the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used Grimshaw's deimplementation framework to thematically group the findings and extracted information on implementation strategies, barriers, and facilitators from articles reporting on active implementation. In the 98 articles addressing 32 unique recommendations, most reported on passive changes in adherence pre-post publication of CW recommendations. Use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer and reduction in staging imaging for early breast cancer were the most commonly evaluated recommendations. Most articles assessing passive changes in adherence pre-post CW publication reported improvement. All articles evaluating active implementation (10 of 98) reported improved compliance (range: 3%-73% improvement). Most common implementation strategies included provider education and/or stakeholder engagement. Preconceived views and reluctance to adopt new practices were common barriers; common facilitators included the use of technology and provider education to increase provider buy-in. Given the limited uptake of oncology-specific CW recommendations thus far, more attention toward supporting active implementation is needed. Effective adoption of CW likely requires a multipronged approach that includes building stakeholder buy-in through engagement and education, using technology-enabled forced functions to facilitate change along with policy and reimbursement models that disincentivize low-value care. Professional societies have a role to play in supporting this next phase of CW.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.