Defining the Canadian rural general surgeon.

BACKGROUND: A total of 18%-30% of Canadians live in a rural area and are served by 8% of the country's general surgeons. The demographic characteristics of Canada's population and its geography greatly affect the health outcomes and needs of the population living in rural areas, and rural general surgeons hold a unique role in meeting the surgical needs of these communities. Rural general surgery is a distinct area of practice that is not well understood. We aimed to define the Canadian rural general surgeon to inform rural health human resource planning. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature was undertaken of Ovid, MEDLINE, and Embase using the terms "rural," "general surgery," and "workforce." We limited our review to articles from North America and Australia. RESULTS: The search yielded 425 titles, and 110 articles underwent full-text review. A definition of rural general surgery was not identified in the Canadian literature. Rurality was defined by population cut-offs or combining community size and proximity to larger centres. The literature highlighted the unique challenges and broad scope of rural general surgical practice. CONCLUSION: Rural general surgeons in Canada can be defined as specialists who work in a small community with limited metropolitan influence. They apply core general surgery skills and skills from other specialties to serve the unique needs of their community. Surgical training programs and health systems planning must recognize and support the unique skill set required of rural general surgeons and the critical role they play in the health and sustainability of rural communities.

Comparison of patient-reported outcomes with single versus multiple fraction palliative radiotherapy for bone metastasis in a population-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: Despite randomized control trials showing equivalent efficacy between single-fraction (SF) and multiple-fraction (MF) radiation therapy (RT) for bone metastases (BoM), considerable variation in fractionation exists. We compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following SF versus MF RT in a population-based cohort. METHODS: PROs were chosen to assess patients' perception of pain, function, and symptom frustration. Total score was the sum of the 3 questions. RESULTS: 968 patients completed pre and post-RT PROs, 35% (335) had complicated BoM. Overall, there were no differences in total score improvement (79% vs. 83%; p=0.13), nor for complicated BoM (77% vs. 84%; p=0.12), SFRT and MFRT respectively. On multivariate analysis no differences in improvement in total score were observed between SFRT and MFRT overall (OR=0.71; 95% CI 0.49-1.02; p=0.06), nor for complicated BoM (OR=0.74; 95% CI 0.39-1.39; p=0.35). In the complicated BoM subset, pain complete response (CR) (19% vs. 33%; p=0.01) and functional improvement occurred more commonly in the MFRT group (69% vs. 81%; p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Improvements in PROs for pain, function and symptom frustration were similar between SFRT and MFRT supporting the use of hypofractionated regimens. Using a simple, 3-question, telephone-based questionnaire to assess response to palliative RT is a feasible strategy to collect PROs.

Impact of Using Audit Data to Improve the Evidence-Based Use of Single-Fraction Radiation Therapy for Bone Metastases in British Columbia.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of a population-based intervention to increase the consistency and use of single-fraction radiation therapy (SFRT) for bone metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 2012, an audit of radiation therapy prescriptions for bone metastases in British Columbia identified significant interphysician and -center (26%-73%) variation in the use of SFRT. Anonymous physician-level and identifiable regional cancer center SFRT use data were presented to all radiation oncologists, together with published guidelines, meta-analyses, and recommendations from practice leaders. The use of SFRT for bone metastases from 2007 through 2011 was compared with use of SFRT in 2013, to assess the impact of the audit and educational intervention. Multilevel logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between the usage of SFRT and the timing of the radiation while controlling for potentially confounding variables. Physician and center were included as group effects to account for the clustered structure of the data. RESULTS: A total of 16,898 courses of RT were delivered from 2007 through 2011, and 3200 courses were delivered in 2013. The rates of SFRT use in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013 were 50.5%, 50.9%, 48.3%, 48.5%, 48.0%, and 59.7%, respectively (P<.001). Use of SFRT increased in each of 5 regional centers: A: 26% to 32%; B: 36% to 56%; C: 39% to 57%; D: 49% to 56%; and E: 73% to 85.0%. Use of SFRT was more consistent; 3 of 5 centers used SFRT for 56% to 57% of bone metastases RT courses. The regression analysis showed strong evidence that the usage of SFRT increased after the 2012 intervention (odds ratio 2.27, 95% confidence interval 2.06-2.50, P<.0001). CONCLUSION: Assessed on a population basis, an audit-based intervention increased utilization of SFRT for bone metastases. The intervention reversed a trend to decreasing SFRT use, reduced costs, and improved patient convenience. This suggests that dissemination of programmatic quality indicators in oncology can lead to increased utilization of evidence-based practice.