Search results for: Stephen R. Cater

Authors: Liane J. Ioannou, Jonathan Serpell, Cino Bendinelli, David Walters, Jenny Gough, Dean Lisewski, Win Meyer-Rochow, Julie Miller, Duncan Topliss, Bill Fleming, Stephen Farrell, Andrew Kiu, James Kollias, Mark Sywak, Adam Aniss, Linda Fenton, Danielle Ghusn, Simon Harper, Aleksandra Popadich, Kate Stringer, David Watters, Susannah Ahern

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: There are significant variations in the management, treatment and outcomes of thyroid cancer, particularly in the role of: diagnostic investigation and pre-treatment scanning; optimal extent of surgery (total or hemi-thyroidectomy); use of active surveillance for small low-risk cancers; central lymph node dissections (therapeutic or prophylactic); outcomes following surgery (e.g. recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, hypocalcaemia, hypoparathyroidism); post-surgical hormone, calcium and vitamin D therapy; and provision and dosage of radioactive iodine treatment. A proven strategy to reduce variations in the outcome and to improve survival is to measure and compare it using high-quality clinical registry data. Clinical registries provide the most effective means of collecting high-quality data and are a tool for quality improvement. Where they have been introduced at a state or national level, registries have become one of the most clinically valued tools for quality improvement. To benchmark clinical care, clinical quality registries require systematic measurement at predefined intervals and the capacity to report back information to participating clinical units. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a core set clinical indicators that enable measurement and reporting of quality of care for patients with thyroid cancer. We hypothesise that measuring clinical quality indicators, developed to identify differences in quality of care across sites, will reduce variation and improve patient outcomes and survival, thereby lessening costs and healthcare burden to the Australian community. METHOD: Preparatory work and scoping was conducted to identify existing high quality, clinical guidelines and best practice for thyroid cancer both nationally and internationally, as well as relevant literature. A bi-national panel was invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. Panelists were asked to rate each proposed indicator on a Likert scale of 1–9 in a three-round iterative process. RESULTS: A total of 236 potential quality indicators were identified. One hundred and ninety-two indicators were removed to reflect the data capture by the Australian and New Zealand Thyroid Cancer Registry (ANZTCR) (from diagnosis to 90-days post-surgery). The remaining 44 indicators were presented to the panelists for voting. A further 21 indicators were later added by the panelists bringing the total potential quality indicators to 65. Of these, 21 were considered the most important and feasible indicators to measure quality of care in thyroid cancer, of which 12 were recommended for inclusion in the final set. The consensus indicator set spans the spectrum of care, including: preoperative; surgery; surgical complications; staging and post-surgical treatment planning; and post-surgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a core set of quality indicators to measure quality of care in thyroid cancer. This indicator set can be applied as a tool for internal quality improvement, comparative quality reporting, public reporting and research. Inclusion of these quality indicators into monitoring databases such as clinical quality registries will enable opportunities for benchmarking and feedback on best practice care to clinicians involved in the management of thyroid cancer.

Keywords: clinical registry, Delphi survey, quality indicators, quality of care

Procedia PDF Downloads 179

Authors: Stephen Verderber

Abstract:

The World Health Organization (WHO) calls for research and development on ecologically sustainable, resilient structures capable of effectively responding to disaster events globally, in response to climate change, politically based diasporas, earthquakes, and other adverse events upending the rhythms of everyday life globally. By 2050, nearly 80% of the world’s population will reside in coastal zones, and this, coupled with the increasingly dire impacts of climate change, constitute a recipe for further chaos and disruption, and in light of these events, architects have yet to rise up to meet the challenge. In the arena of healthcare, rapidly deployable clinics and field hospitals can provide immediate assistance in medically underserved disaster strike zones. Transportable facilities offer multiple advantages over conventional, fixed-site hospitals, as lightweight, comparatively unencumbered alternatives. These attributes have been proven repeatedly in 20th century vehicular and tent-based structures deployed in frontline combat theaters and in prior natural disasters. Prefab transportable clinics and trauma centers recently responded adroitly to medical emergencies in the aftermath of the Haitian (2010) and Ecuadorian (2016) earthquakes, and in North American post-hurricane relief efforts (2017) while architects continue to be castigated by their engineer colleagues as chronically poor first responders. Architecturally based portable structures for healthcare currently include Redeployable Health Centers (RHCs), Redeployable Trauma Centers (RTCs), and Permanent Modular Installations (PMIs). Five tectonic variants within this typology have recently been operationalized in the field: 1. Vehicular-based Nomadics: Prefab modules installed on a truck chassis with interior compartments dropped in prior to final assembly. Alternately, a two-component apparatus is preferred, with a truck cab pulling a modular medical unit, with independent transiting component; 2. Tent and Pneumatic Systems: Tent/yurt precursors and inflatable systems lightweight and responsive to topographically challenging terrain and diverse climates; 3. Containerized Systems: The standard modular intermodal-shipping container affords structural strength, resiliency in difficult transiting conditions, and can be densely close-packed and these can be custom-built or hold flat-pack systems; 4. Flat-Packs and Pop-Up Systems: These kit-of-part assemblies are shipped in standardized or specially-designed ISO containers; and 5. Hybrid Systems: These consist of composite facilities representing a synthesis of mobile vehicular components and/or tent or shipping containers, fused with conventional or pneumatically activated tent systems. Hybrids are advantageous in many installation contexts from an aesthetic, fabrication, and transiting perspective. Advantages/disadvantages of various modular systems are comparatively examined, followed by presentation of a compendium of 80 evidence (research)-based planning and design considerations addressing site/context, transiting and commissioning, triage, decontamination/intake, diagnostic and treatment, facility tectonics, and administration/total environment. The benefits of offsite pre-manufactured fabrication are examined, as is anticipated growth in international demand for transportable healthcare facilities to meet the challenges posed by accelerating global climate change and global conflicts. This investigation into rapid response facilities for pre and post-disaster zones is drawn from a recent book by the author, the first on architecture on this topic (Innovations in Transportable Healthcare Architecture).

Keywords: disaster mitigation, rapid response healthcare architecture, offsite prefabrication

Procedia PDF Downloads 117