The cluster-randomized Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer trial: evaluating a quality-improvement strategy in surgery

Background

Following surgery for rectal cancer, two unfortunate outcomes for patients are permanent colostomy and local recurrence of cancer. We tested whether a quality-improvement strategy to change surgical practice would improve these outcomes.

Methods

Sixteen hospitals were cluster-randomized to the intervention (Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer strategy) or control (normal practice) arm. Consecutive patients with primary rectal cancer were accrued from May 2002 to December 2004. Surgeons at hospitals in the intervention arm could voluntarily participate by attending workshops, using opinion leaders, inviting a study team surgeon to demonstrate optimal techniques of total mesorectal excision, completing postoperative questionnaires, and receiving audits and feedback. Main outcome measures were hospital rates of permanent colostomy and local recurrence of cancer.

Results

A total of 56 surgeons (n = 558 patients) participated in the intervention arm and 49 surgeons (n = 457 patients) in the control arm. The median follow-up of patients was 3.6 years. In the intervention arm, 70% of surgeons participated in workshops, 70% in intraoperative demonstrations and 71% in postoperative questionnaires. Surgeons who had an intraoperative demonstration provided care to 86% of the patients in the intervention arm. The rates of permanent colostomy were 39% in the intervention arm and 41% in the control arm (odds ratio OR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval CI] 0.63–1.48). The rates of local recurrence were 7% in the intervention arm and 6% in the control arm (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.68–1.64).

Interpretation

Despite good participation by surgeons, the resource-intense quality-improvement strategy did not reduce hospital rates of permanent colostomy or local recurrence compared with usual practice. (ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00182130","term_id":"NCT00182130"}}NCT00182130.)Following surgery for rectal cancer, two unfortunate outcomes for patients are permanent colostomy and local recurrence of the cancer. Local recurrence is especially feared, because it is usually inoperable and patients can suffer a slow, painful death.¹ The use of total mesorectal excision, which involves dissection of the lymph node-bearing portion of the rectum,² has resulted in improved outcomes, with local recurrence rates as low as 1%–5% and rates of permanent colostomy of 10%–15%.^3–6 Population-based rates of local recurrence are unavailable for any North American jurisdiction, although a Canadian hospital series found that rates varied from 10% to 45% based on the practice volume and training of surgeons.⁷ A surgical report on health regions in the province of Ontario (population 13 million) found that rates of permanent colostomy varied from 31% to 41%.⁸ This geographic variation in outcomes, together with rates of inferior outcomes as compared to outcomes specific to total mesorectal excision, suggest that gaps exist in the quality of rectal surgery provided to patients with rectal cancer.Quality-improvement strategies for encouraging physicians to change practice include continuing medical education, the use of opinion leaders, and audit and feedback.^9–11 As well, improvement may be enhanced by using a participatory and supportive approach that focuses on the system and not on individual practitioners.^12,13 The small number of studies that have evaluated changes in surgeons’ practices often have targeted process measures, such as preoperative ordering of antibiotics, rather than patient outcomes, such as recurrence of cancer.^14,15We tested whether use of a surgeon-directed quality-improvement strategy would improve hospital rates of permanent colostomy and local recurrence of cancer among patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer. We used the Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer (QIRC) strategy, which integrates quality-improvement interventions and principles to encourage surgeons to provide optimal total mesorectal excision to patients with rectal cancer.¹⁶