Skip to main content Accessibility help

Measuring the influence of colleagues on a consultant team's use of breast conserving surgery

  • Andrew R. Hoy (a1), Hannah Patrick (a1), Bruce Campbell (a2) and Georgios Lyratzopoulos (a3)


Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine potential reasons why the use of breast conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer varies substantially between hospital teams in England, and in particular to examine whether colleague influence has a role in influencing BCS rates locally.

Methods: Routinely collected Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data relating to 420 surgical teams in England who performed more than ten breast cancer operations during the financial year 2006/07 were used to identify predictors of team BCS use. Team BCS rates (as a proportion of all types of breast excision surgery) were subject to a regression analysis that incorporated, as independent variables, a range of patient, organizational, and local demographic factors, as well as the BCS rate of colleagues working alongside them in the same hospitals(s).

Results: After adjusting for the effects of other variables, BCS use by colleagues working in the same hospital(s) was a significant predictor of a team's own BCS rate (standardized b = 0.224; p < .001), denoting a typical 3 percent increase in a team's BCS rate for every 10 percent increase in the BCS rate of colleagues.

Conclusions: The practice of colleagues seems to have a measurable influence upon a surgical team's BCS usage. Guidance from HTA organizations can set national standards about the use of new techniques and innovations, but dissemination can be either slowed down or accelerated by the influence of local colleagues. A strategy of disseminating guidance through professional networks or “local champions” could be a powerful avenue for change.



Hide All
1. Adelson, P, Lim, K, Churches, T, Nguyen, R. Surgical treatment of breast cancer in New South Wales 1991, 1992. Aust N Z J Surg. 1997;67:914.
2. Anderson, JG, Jay, SJ. The diffusion of medical technology: Social network analysis and policy research. Sociol Q. 1985;26:4964.
3. Ankem, K. Influence of information sources on the adoption of uterine fibroid embolization by interventional radiologists. J Med Libr Assoc. 2003;91:450459.
4. Association of Breast Surgery at BASO; Association of Breast Surgery at BAPRAS; Training Interface Group in Breast Surgery, Oncoplastic breast surgery – a guide to good practice. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33 (Suppl 1):S1S23.
5. Association of Breast Surgery at BASO. Surgical guidelines for the management of breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35 (Suppl 1):122.
6. Becker, MH. Factors affecting diffusion of innovations among health professionals. Am J Public Health. 1970;60:294304.
7. Breast Cancer Clinical Outcome Measures (BCCOM) Project. Analysis of the management of symptomatic breast cancers diagnosed in 2004. Birmingham: West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit/Breakthrough Breast Cancer; 2007.
8. Charlson, ME, Pompei, P, Ales, KL, MacKenzie, CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373383.
9. Collins, ED, Kerrigan, CL, Anglade, P. Surgical treatment of early breast cancer: What would surgeons choose for themselves? Eff Clin Pract. 1999;2:149151.
10. Cutuli, B, Lemanski, C, Fourquet, A, et al. Breast-conserving surgery with or without radiotherapy vs mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ: French survey experience. Br J Cancer. 2009;100:10481054.
11. Denham, C, White, I. Differences in urban and rural Britain. Popul Trends. 1998;91:2334.
12. Dixon, JM, Mak, C. Predictors of mastectomy in a certified breast center – The surgeon is an independent risk factor. Breast J. 2008;14:321323.
13. Fedeli, U, Alba, N, Schievano, E, et al. Diffusion of good practices of care and decline of the association with case volume: The example of breast conserving surgery. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:167.
14. Gabbay, J, le May, A. Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed “mindlines?” Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ. 2004;329:1013.
15. Greer, AL. The state of the art versus the state of the science: The diffusion of new medical technologies into practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1988;4:526.
16. Haddock, CC, Begun, JW. The diffusion of two diagnostic technologies among hospitals in New York State. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1988;4:593600.
17. Hall, SE, Holman, CD, Hendrie, DV, Spilsbury, K. Unequal access to breast-conserving surgery in Western Australia 1982–2000. ANZ J Surg. 2004;74:413419.
18. Hiotis, K, Ye, W, Sposro, R, Skinner, KA. Predictors of breast conservation therapy: Size is not all that matters. Cancer. 2005;103:892899.
19. Jerome-D'Emilia, B, Begun, JW. Diffusion of breast conserving surgery in medical communities. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:143151.
20. Johantgen, ME, Coffey, RM, Harris, DR, Levy, H, Clinton, JJ. Treating early-stage breast cancer: Hospital characteristics associated with breast-conserving surgery. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:14321434.
21. Kimmick, GG, Camacho, F, Balkrishnan, R, Anderson, R. Patterns of care among breast cancer patients with financial need: Information from a Medicaid-claims and tumor registry linked database. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23 (Suppl):6037.
22. Kirby, RM, Basit, A, Manimaran, N. Patient choice significantly affects mastectomy rates in the treatment of breast cancer. Int Semin Surg Oncol. 2008;5:20.
23. Lacey, T. NICE implementation uptake report: Pimecrolimus and tacrolimus for atopic eczema. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2007.
24. Laliberte, L, Fennell, ML, Papandonatos, G. The relationship of membership in research networks to compliance with treatment guidelines for early-stage breast cancer. Med Care. 2005;43:471479.
25. Lazovich, D, Solomon, CC, Thomas, DB, Moe, RE, White, E. Breast conservation therapy in the United States following the 1990 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on the treatment of patients with early stage invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1999;86:628637.
26. Mandelblatt, JS, Berg, CD, Meropol, NJ, et al. Measuring and predicting surgeons’ practice styles for breast cancer treatment in older women. Med Care. 2001;39:228242.
27. McGettigan, P, Golden, J, Fryer, J, Chan, R, Feely, J. Prescribers prefer people: The sources of information used by doctors for prescribing suggest that the medium is more important than the message. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;51:184189.
28. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Improving outcomes in breast cancer: Manual update. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2002.
29. National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit Team. A national audit of provision and outcomes of mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery for women in England and Wales: First annual report. Leeds: The NHS Information Centre for health and social care; 2008.
30. National Radiotherapy Advisory Group. Radiotherapy: Developing a world class service for England. London: Department of Health; 2007.
31. Nuttall, M, Van Der Meulen, J, Emberton, M. Charlson scores based on ICD-10 administrative data were valid in assessing comorbidity in patients undergoing urological cancer surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:265273.
32. Riley, BL, Taylor, SM, Elliott, SJ. Determinants of implementing heart health: Promotion activities in Ontario public health units: A social ecological perspective. Health Educ Res. 2001;16:425441.
33. Riskin, DJ, Longaker, MT, Gertner, M, Krummel, TM. Innovation in Surgery; a historical perspective. Ann Surg. 2006;244:686693.
34. Rentzhog, L. SBU's Ambassador Program in Northern Sweden. In Jonsson, E, ed. Effective dissemination of findings from research – a compilation of essays. Alberta: Institute of Health Economics; 2008:5567.
35. Sheldon, TA, Cullum, N, Dawson, D, et al. What's the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patient notes and interviews. BMJ. 2004;329:9991007.
36. Strang, D, Tuma, NB. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in diffusion. Am J Sociol. 1993;99:614639.
37. Temple, WJ, Russell, ML, Parsons, LL, et al. Conservation surgery for breast cancer as the preferred choice: A prospective analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:33673373.
38. The National Cancer Services Analysis Team. UK National Radiotherapy Equipment Survey. (accessed March 2009).
39. The NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care, Hospital Episode Statistics. [accessed 2009]. HES data is copyright © 2009, Re-used with the permission. All rights reserved.
40. Velikova, G, Booth, L, Johnston, C, et al. Breast cancer outcomes in South Asian population of West Yorkshire. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:19261932.
41. Zorzi, M, Puliti, D, Vettorazzi, M, et al. Mastectomy rates are decreasing in the era of service screening: A population-based study in Italy (1997–2001). Br J Cancer. 2006;95:12651268.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Hoy et al. supplementary material
Supplementary table

 Word (78 KB)
78 KB


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed