Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 19, 2025
Translational Brain Mapping at the University of Rochester Medical Center: Preserving the Mind Through Personalized Brain Mapping
Published on: August 12, 2019
Mapping patient encounters to identify recruitment timepoints after brain tumour surgery: a cohort and
James Booker1,2, Jack Penn3,2, Naomi Fersht4
1Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK james.booker.19@ucl.ac.uk.
Objective:
This study aims to develop a comprehensive process map for patients with brain tumours to identify opportunities for quality improvement and automated data collection. Through optimising workflows, the overall goal is to improve patient recruitment to clinical trials.
Design:
A two-stage mixed methods design, combining qualitative development of a process map with quantitative validation using electronic health records (EHR). Following this, a cross-sectional survey was conducted to assess how patients learn about clinical trials.
Setting:
A single neurosurgery centre in the United Kingdom.
Participants:
The process map was developed through stakeholder interviews with neuro-oncology multidisciplinary team members and patients (n=13). Clinical encounters were validated with EHR data from 50 patients. A cross-sectional survey presented the validated process map to 25 postoperative patients to identify the resources they used to learn about ongoing clinical trials.
Interventions:
Postoperative questionnaires were given to patients after brain tumour surgery, either on the ward or in follow-up clinic.
Primary And Secondary Outcome Measures:
The primary outcome was the percentage of the study cohort that was present at encounters on the process map. Key timepoints were defined if >80% of patients were present. They represent high-yield opportunities to offer information on clinical trial recruitment. The secondary outcome was the resources used by patients to learn about ongoing clinical trials.
Results:
Quantitative validation of patient pathways identified 345 encounters involving 19 discrete events, including clinics, telephone follow-ups and treatments. The flow of encounters reflected the process map with 90.7% accuracy, with key timepoints identified at imaging and biopsy/surgical procedures. A cross-sectional survey conducted during outpatient neuro-oncology clinics identified that patients predominantly used self-directed internet searches (n=17, 68%) and verbal information from their neurosurgeon (n=16, 64%) to learn about clinical trials.
Conclusions:
This study demonstrates the effectiveness of process mapping in identifying key timepoints for automated data collection and opportunities for quality improvement for clinical trial recruitment. Integrating online and in-clinic education strategies could enhance patient awareness and participation in clinical trials.
