Facilitating the appropriate use of e-health solutions.

In this issue, the lead article proposes that e-health technologies should be used more broadly and that patients should have greater access to their information through such technologies. The Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) agrees with this statement and suggests that to facilitate the timely and appropriate adoption of new technologies among healthcare providers to enhance patient care, barriers in the existing regulatory, legislative and legal frameworks must be addressed. While much of the discussion to date on e-health has focused primarily on high-level issues regarding regulatory compliance, "privacy by design" and the e-health "panacea," CMPA suggests that there needs to be a refocus on achieving more concrete change and gains through consideration of the specific impact on the drivers of healthcare delivery. An integrated or holistic approach is required involving healthcare providers, regulators, legislators, stakeholders, ministries of health, privacy commissioners and the courts. To better leverage potential advantages, efficiencies and enhanced, safer care for our healthcare system, all parties must work together to develop an acceptable and flexible approach to the "appropriate use" of e-health technologies that will facilitate adoption by healthcare professionals in a manner that is consistent with the expectations of the profession and applicable standards of practice.

Improving cancer surgery in Ontario: recommendations from a strategic planning retreat.

INTRODUCTION: The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care mandated a rapid and thorough change in the delivery of cancer services in Ontario to integrate ambulatory services offered by Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) with the inpatient services of affiliated hospitals. The CCO Surgical Oncology Program held a strategic planning retreat to establish the basis upon which to implement surgery-specific changes. METHODS: Participants completed a pre-retreat survey. Based on survey results, the retreat was organized around 4 themes: role of the Surgical Oncology Program; knowledge transfer; funding for cancer surgery; and research priorities. These topics were discussed in small breakout groups and by the entire assembly. RESULTS: Retreat participants (n = 55) included hospital CEOs, vice-presidents of cancer services, surgeons from cancer centres and community hospitals, academic chairs of surgery, clinician researchers and managers from CCO. Responses to the pre-retreat survey (n = 38) and recommendations made by retreat participants showed strong support for the Surgical Oncology Program to take a leadership role in the development and monitoring of quality indicators, research related to cancer surgery and the creation of regional communities of practice. Funding mechanisms for cancer surgeons and hospitals performing cancer surgery were also highlighted. CONCLUSION: The Surgical Oncology Program used the results to develop a strategic plan that was approved by retreat participants and the board of the CCO. The program has embarked on a multifaceted approach to facilitate, monitor and report on the organization and delivery of cancer surgery in Ontario.

Current awareness in Canada of clinical practice guidelines for colorectal cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTF-PHC) recently revised its screening recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC). We wished to assess the effect of this change on the screening beliefs and clinical practice of primary care physicians. METHODS: We surveyed 160 primary-care physicians, quasi-randomly sampled, in June-July 2001 and again in April-July 2002, 9 months after publication of the guidelines. Descriptive statistics and McNemar chi2 analyses were carried out on data from physicians who responded to both surveys. RESULTS: Of the those sampled, 47% responded to both surveys. After the publication of the CTF-PHC guidelines, the proportion reporting that they recommend CRC screening to their patients at average risk increased from 43% to 60% (p = 0.02). Before publication of the revised guidelines 48% stated that the CTF-PHC did not support screening, compared with 24% afterward (p = 0.01). CTF-PHC guidelines were acknowledged by 30% to be a source of CRC screening information. Around 9 months post-publication, 24% of the physicians stated their awareness of the revised screening guidelines. The most commonly cited reasons for not recommending CRC screening to average-risk patients were that the evidence is inconclusive and that CTF-PHC guidelines do not support screening. CONCLUSIONS: After publication of the revised CTF-PHC guidelines more primary-care physicians reported that they recommend CRC screening to their average-risk patients. The belief that the evidence is inconclusive nevertheless remains a considerable barrier to implementation. To increase the use of screening for CRC, additional strategies are required.