https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Index ${session.getAttribute("locale")} 5 Clinician-led improvement in cancer care (CLICC) - testing a multifaceted implementation strategy to increase evidence-based prostate cancer care: phased randomised controlled trial - study protocol https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:16763 Wed 11 Apr 2018 15:41:59 AEST ]]> FROGG high-risk prostate cancer workshop: patterns of practice and literature review: part I: intact prostate https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:21357 Sat 24 Mar 2018 07:51:27 AEDT ]]> FROGG high-risk prostate cancer workshop: patterns of practice and literature review: part II post-radical prostatectomy https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:28752 Sat 24 Mar 2018 07:37:36 AEDT ]]> Urologists’ referral and radiation oncologists’ treatment patterns regarding high-risk prostate cancer patients receiving radiotherapy within 6 months after radical prostatectomy: A prospective cohort analysis https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:41232 P < 0.001). Conclusion: Only 30% of patients with high-risk features are referred to a radiation oncologist with the likelihood of referral being influenced by the perceived risk of cancer-recurrence as well as the urologist’s institutional/personal preference. When patients are seen by a radiation oncologist, 61% receive radiotherapy within 6 months after RP with the likelihood of receiving radiotherapy not being heavily influenced by increasing risk of recurrence. This suggests many suitable patients would receive radiotherapy if referred and seen by a radiation oncologist.]]> Fri 29 Jul 2022 13:51:38 AEST ]]> A multidisciplinary team-oriented intervention to increase guideline recommended care for high-risk prostate cancer: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised implementation trial https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:44096 p < 0.001). After adjustment, there was no significant difference in referral to radiation oncology (intervention 32% vs control 30%; adjusted RR=1.06; 95% CI [0.74 to 1.51]; p=0.879). Sites with the largest relative increases in the percentage of patients discussed also tended to have greater increases in referral (p=0.001). In the intervention phase, urologists failed to provide referrals to more than half of patients whom the MDT had recommended for referral (78 of 140; 56%). Conclusions: The intervention resulted in significantly more patients being discussed by a MDT. However, the recommendations from MDTs were not uniformly recorded or followed. Although practice varied markedly between MDTs, the intervention did not result in a significant overall change in referral rates, probably reflecting a lack of change in urologists' attitudes. Our results suggest that interventions focused on structures and processes that enable health system-level change, rather than those focused on individual-level change, are likely to have the greatest effect.]]> Fri 07 Oct 2022 08:50:21 AEDT ]]>