The cocreation of care pathways for patients treated with oral anticancer drugs: From assessment data to an actual care pathway

Abstract

AbstractRationaleDue to the emergence of oral anticancer therapies, existing care processes in oncology – that are mainly focused on in‐hospital treatments – must be rethought. The development of a care pathway is a well‐known methodology to reorganise and standardise care for a specific patient group. However, care pathway development might be complex and burdensome for healthcare teams, requiring a well‐thought‐out methodology that provides guidance to the teams.Aims and ObjectivesIn 10 Belgian oncology departments, multidisciplinary teams developed a tailored care pathway, aimed to offer high‐quality patient‐centred care. Each department followed a cocreation methodology, consisting of a current practice assessment, a priority setting, and the actual development of the care pathway. The aim of this study was to investigate how and to which extent underperformed evidence‐based key elements (KEs), identified in the current practice assessment, guided the development of the care pathway, and how compliant the final care pathways are with the list of evidence‐based KEs.MethodsA qualitative content analysis was conducted to describe and compare the results of each phase of the cocreation methodology.ResultsThis study shows that much of the evidence and feedback on current practice that was used as a starting point, got lost throughout the cocreation process. Only a limited proportion of the (seriously) underperformed KEs were prioritised by the multidisciplinary teams. Furthermore, several prioritised KEs could not be retrieved in the care pathway documents. Also, the final care pathways were not fully compliant with existing evidence.ConclusionBased on the findings, a more rigorous cocreation methodology seems needed, offering very concrete support for multidisciplinary teams to integrate the prioritised KEs in the care process (e.g., by using a model care pathway). Next to the selfreported performance data from healthcare professionals and patients, more objective data (e.g., walkthrough, medical records) and more extensive patient involvement should be considered in the priority setting.