Casanove et al. (2022), in their article “Development of a Workflow Process Mapping Protocol,” attempted to resolve the issue of efficient patient treatment management. Timely, not delayed care is essential in the resulting patient well-being, especially in the case of oncology. Limited care access is the most notable barrier to efficient and equal healthcare delivery. Thankfully, it can be easily addressed with an effective navigation process that will allow for greater service accessibility. Unfortunately, there are many requirements for the navigation protocol to be truly efficient.
A lack of standardization in tools that integrate workflows and reduce treatment gaps for oncology patients presents a significant issue in the implementation of city-wide patient navigation processes. In the effort to standardize them, the authors developed a protocol that allows workflow mapping and, thus, improves the navigation process. They state this protocol will significantly enhance the design and delivery of streamlined care coordination in a metropolitan area.
Ultimately, the provided protocol does not seem easily implementable for several reasons. First, it was designed within a single breast cancer treatment modality, which implies limitations outside; in addition, the current research indicates a gap in interdisciplinary streamlining processes (Casanova et al., 2022). Second, the whole protocol proved to be resource-intensive, which often becomes an issue due to the financial differences in regions (Casanova et al., 2022). Finally, the two mentioned reasons invoke skepticism on the actual acceptability and adoption since the data on implementation outcomes are yet to be received.
In my opinion, the issue of workflow mapping does need to be addressed; thus, the conducted research raises the right questions. Among its strengths, I can name the effort of implementing theoretical concepts in practice, which is constantly subjected to challenges. However, the main weakness resides in the resulting protocol’s overall complexity and costs. Moreover, the process did not incorporate the patient perspective, which is crucial to the effectiveness of healthcare delivery.
The efficiency of a workflow mapping protocol depends on many factors. Casanova et al. (2022) managed to grasp the root of the problem in the lack of standardization. However, the scope of the final protocol concerned only one treatment modality, with the protocol itself proving to be resource-intensive. Overall, the research goes in the right direction; thus, there is strong confidence in the future study success.
Reference
Casanova, N. L., LeClair, A. M., Xiao, V., Mullikin, K. R., Lemon, S. C., Freund, K. M., Haas, J. S., Freedman, R. A., Battaglia, T. A. & Consortium, T. R. I. P. T. (2022). Development of a workflow process mapping protocol to inform the implementation of regional patient navigation programs in breast oncology. Cancer, 128, 2649-2658.
Appendix A
Use these guidelines if the customer asks for appendices. The first paragraph of the appendix should be flush with the left margin. Additional paragraphs should be indented.
Begin each appendix on a new page with the word “Appendix” at the top center. Use an identifying capital letter (e.g., Appendix A, Appendix B, etc.) if you have more than one appendix. If you are referring to more than one appendix in your text, use the plural appendices (APA only).
Label tables and figures in the appendix as you would in the text of your manuscript, using the letter A before the number to clarify that the table or figure belongs to the appendix.
Appendix B
Demographic Information for Cummings et al. (2002)’s Review.
If an appendix consists entirely of a table or figure, the title of the table or figure should serve as the title of the appendix.