Dataset Information

Quality of breast cancer care: perception versus practice.

ABSTRACT: Because insurers use performance and quality metrics to inform reimbursement, identifying remediable causes of poor-quality cancer care is imperative. We undertook this descriptive cohort study to assess key predictors of women's perceived quality of their breast cancer care and actual guideline-concordant quality of care received.We surveyed inner-city women with newly diagnosed and surgically treated early-stage breast cancer requiring adjuvant treatment who were enrolled onto a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patient assistance to reduce disparities in care. We assessed women's perceived quality of care and perceived quality of the process of getting care, such as getting referrals, test results, and treatments; we abstracted records to determine the actual quality of care.Of the 374 new patients with early-stage breast cancer enrolled onto the RCT, only a slight majority of women (55%) perceived their quality of care as excellent; 88% actually received good-quality, guideline-concordant care. Excellent perceived quality (P < .001) was significantly associated with patients' perception of the quality of the process of getting care (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.78; 95% CI, 1.65 to 1.87). Also associated with perceived quality-and mediated by race-were trust in one's physician (adjusted RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.64) and perceived racism, which affected black women more than women of other races/ethnicities (black race-adjusted RR for perceived racism, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.10 to 0.87]; black race-adjusted RR for trust, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.90]; c = 0.82 for the model; P < .001). Actual quality of care provided did not affect perceived quality of care received.Patients' perceived quality of care differs from their receipt of high-quality care. Mutable targets to improve perceived quality of care include the processes of getting care and trusting their physician.

SUBMITTER: Bickell NA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3383180 | biostudies-literature | 2012 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality of breast cancer care: perception versus practice.

Bickell Nina A NA Neuman Jennifer J Fei Kezhen K Franco Rebeca R Joseph Kathie-Ann KA

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 20120409 15

<h4>Purpose</h4>Because insurers use performance and quality metrics to inform reimbursement, identifying remediable causes of poor-quality cancer care is imperative. We undertook this descriptive cohort study to assess key predictors of women's perceived quality of their breast cancer care and actual guideline-concordant quality of care received.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>We surveyed inner-city women with newly diagnosed and surgically treated early-stage breast cancer requiring adjuvant trea ...[more]

PMID: 22493417

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeOverlooking other medical conditions during cancer treatment and follow-up could result in excess morbidity and mortality, thereby undermining gains associated with early detection and improved treatment of cancer. We compared the quality of care for diabetes patients subsequently diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer to matched, diabetic non-cancer controls.MethodsLongitudinal cohort study using primary care records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, United Kingdom. Patients with pre-existing diabetes were followed for up to 5 years after cancer diagnosis, or after an assigned index date (non-cancer controls). Quality of diabetes care was estimated based on Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators. Mixed effects logistic regression analyses were used to compare the unadjusted and adjusted odds of meeting quality measures between cancer patients and controls, overall and stratified by type of cancer.Results3382 cancer patients and 11,135 controls contributed 44,507 person-years of follow-up. In adjusted analyses, cancer patients were less likely to meet five of 14 quality measures, including: total cholesterol ≤ 5 mmol/L (odds ratio [OR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.90); glycosylated hemoglobin ≤ 59 mmol/mol (adjusted OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.85); and albumin creatinine ratio testing (adjusted OR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.91). However, cancer patients were as likely as their matched controls to meet quality measures for other diabetes services, including retinal screening, foot examination, and dietary review.ConclusionsAlthough in the short-term, cancer patients were less likely to achieve target thresholds for cholesterol and HbA1c, they continued to receive high-quality diabetes primary care throughout 5 years post diagnosis.Implications for cancer survivorsThese findings are important for cancer survivors with pre-existing diabetes because they indicate that high-quality diabetes care is maintained throughout the continuum of cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with osteoporosis can sustain fractures following falls or other minimal trauma. This risk of fracture can be reduced through appropriate diagnostic testing, pharmacologic therapy, and other readily measured standards of care.ObjectivesOur aim was to develop a credible clinical performance assessment to measure physicians' quality of osteoporosis care, and determine reasonable performance standards for both competent and excellent care.DesignThis was a retrospective cohort study.ParticipantsThree hundred and eighty one general internists and subspecialists with time-limited board certification were included in the study.Main measuresPerformance rates on eight evidence-based measures were obtained from the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Osteoporosis Practice Improvement Module® (PIM), a web-based tool that uses medical chart reviews to help physicians assess and improve care. We applied a patented methodology, using an adaptation of the Angoff standard-setting method and the Dunn-Rankin method, with an expert panel skilled in osteoporosis care to form a composite and establish standards for both competent and excellent care. Physician and practice characteristics, including a practice infrastructure score based on the Physician Practice Connections Readiness Survey (PPC-RS), were used to examine the validity of the inferences made from the composite scores.Key resultsThe mean composite score was 67.54 out of 100 maximum points with a reliability of 0.92. The standard for competent care was 46.87, and for excellent care it was 83.58. Both standards had high classification accuracies (0.95). Sixteen percent of physicians performed below the competent care standard, while 22 % met the excellent care standard. Specialists scored higher than generalists, and better practice infrastructure was associated with higher composite scores, providing some validity evidence.ConclusionsWe developed a rigorous methodology for assessing physicians' osteoporosis care. Clinical performance feedback relative to absolute standards of care provides physicians with a meaningful approach to self-evaluation to improve patient care.

Project description:Despite substantial resources devoted to cancer screening nationally, the availability of clinical practice-based systems to support screening guidelines is not known.To characterize the prevalence and correlates of practice-based systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening, with a focus on the patient-centered medical home (PCMH).Web and mail survey of primary care providers conducted in 2014. The survey assessed provider (gender, training) and facility (size, specialty training, physician report of National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) PCMH recognition, and practice affiliation) characteristics. A hierarchical multivariate analysis clustered by clinical practice was conducted to evaluate characteristics associated with the adoption of practice-based systems and technology to support guideline-adherent screening.Primary care physicians in family medicine, general internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology, and nurse practitioners or physician assistants from four clinical care networks affiliated with PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium research centers.The prevalence of routine breast cancer risk assessment, electronic health record (EHR) decision support, comparative performance reports, and panel reports of patients due for routine screening and follow-up.There were 385 participants (57.6 % of eligible). Forty-seven percent (47.0 %) of providers reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH. Less than half reported EHR decision support for breast (48.8 %) or cervical cancer (46.2 %) screening. A minority received comparative performance reports for breast (26.2 %) or cervical (19.7 %) cancer screening, automated reports of patients overdue for breast (18.7 %) or cervical (16.4 %) cancer screening, or follow-up of abnormal breast (18.1 %) or cervical (17.6 %) cancer screening tests. In multivariate analysis, reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH was associated with greater use of comparative performance reports of guideline-adherent breast (OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.58-6.61) or cervical (OR 2.56, 95 % CI 1.32-4.96) cancer screening and automated reports of patients overdue for breast (OR 2.19, 95 % CI 1.15-41.7) or cervical (OR. 2.56, 95 % CI 1.26-5.26) cancer screening.Providers lack systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening. Practice transformation toward a PCMH may support the adoption of systems to achieve guideline-adherent cancer screening in primary care settings.

Dataset Information

Quality of breast cancer care: perception versus practice.

Publications

Quality of breast cancer care: perception versus practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets