Dataset Information

Quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery and care according to patient-, tumor-, and hospital-related factors.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) care has improved considerably, particularly since the implementation of a quality of care program centered on national evidence-based guidelines. Formal quality assessment is however still needed. The aim of this research was to identify factors associated with practice variation in CRC patient care.

Methods

CRC patients identified from all cancer centers in South-West France were included. We investigated variations in practices (from diagnosis to surgery), and compliance with recommended guidelines for colon and rectal cancer. We identified factors associated with three colon cancer practice variations potentially linked to better survival: examination of ? 12 lymph nodes (LN), non-use and use of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II and stage III patients, respectively.

Results

We included 1,206 patients, 825 (68%) with colon and 381 (32%) with rectal cancer, from 53 hospitals. Compliance was high for resection, pathology report, LN examination, and chemotherapy use for stage III patients. In colon cancer, 26% of stage II patients received adjuvant chemotherapy and 71% of stage III patients. 84% of stage US T3T4 rectal cancer patients received pre-operative radiotherapy. In colon cancer, factors associated with examination of ? 12 LNs were: lower ECOG score, advanced stage and larger hospital volume; factors negatively associated were: left sided tumor location and one hospital district. Use of chemotherapy in stage II patients was associated with younger age, advanced stage, emergency setting and care structure (private and location); whereas under-use in stage III patients was associated with advanced age, presence of comorbidities and private hospitals.

Conclusions

Although some changes in practices may have occurred since this observational study, these findings represent the most recent report on practices in CRC in this region, and offer a useful methodological approach for assessing quality of care. Guideline compliance was high, although some organizational factors such as hospital size or location influence practice variation. These factors should be the focus of any future guideline implementation.

SUBMITTER: Mathoulin-Pelissier S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3527146 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery and care according to patient-, tumor-, and hospital-related factors.

Mathoulin-Pélissier Simone S Bécouarn Yves Y Belleannée Geneviève G Pinon Elodie E Jaffré Anne A Coureau Gaëlle G Auby Dominique D Renaud-Salis Jean-Louis JL Rullier Eric E

BMC cancer 20120719

<h4>Background</h4>Colorectal cancer (CRC) care has improved considerably, particularly since the implementation of a quality of care program centered on national evidence-based guidelines. Formal quality assessment is however still needed. The aim of this research was to identify factors associated with practice variation in CRC patient care.<h4>Methods</h4>CRC patients identified from all cancer centers in South-West France were included. We investigated variations in practices (from diagnosis ...[more]

PMID: 22813349

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesAssessing the quality of cancer care (QoCC) has become increasingly important to providers, regulators and purchasers of care worldwide. The aim of this study was to develop evidence-based quality indicators (QIs) for colorectal cancer (CRC) to be applied in a population-based setting.DesignA comprehensive evidence-based literature search was performed to identify the initial list of QIs, which were then selected and developed using a two-step-modified Delphi process involving two multidisciplinary expert panels with expertise in CRC care, quality of care and epidemiology.SettingThe QIs of the clinical cancer care (QC3) population-based project, which involves all the public and private hospitals and clinics present on the territory of Canton Ticino (South Switzerland).ParticipantsTicino Cancer Registry, The Colorectal Cancer Working Group (CRC-WG) and the external academic Advisory Board (AB).Main outcome measuresSet of QIs which encompass the whole diagnostic-treatment process of CRC.ResultsOf the 149 QIs that emerged from 181 sources of literature, 104 were selected during the in-person meeting of CRC-WG. During the Delphi process, CRC-WG shortened the list to 89 QI. AB finally validated 27 QIs according to the phase of care: diagnosis (N=6), pathology (N=3), treatment (N=16) and outcome (N=2).ConclusionsUsing the validated Delphi methodology, including a literature review of the evidence and integration of expert opinions from local clinicians and international experts, we were able to develop a list of QIs to assess QoCC for CRC. This will hopefully guarantee feasibility of data retrieval, as well as acceptance and translation of QIs into the daily clinical practice to improve QoCC. Moreover, evidence-based selected QIs allow one to assess immediate changes and improvements in the diagnostic-therapeutic process that could be translated into a short-term benefit for patients with a possible gain both in overall and disease-free survival.

Project description:BackgroundStarting in 2005, Germany's health law required hospital quality reports to be published every two years by all acute care hospitals. The reports were intended to help patients and physicians make informed choices of hospitals. However, while establishing the quality indicators that form the content of the reports, the information needs of the target groups were not explicitly taken into account. Therefore, the aim of our study was to determine patient and physician opinion of the relevance of the reported quality indicators for choosing or referring to a hospital.MethodsConvenience samples of 50 patients and 50 physicians were asked to rate the understandability (patients), suitability (physicians) and relevance (both groups) of a set of 29 quality indicators. The set was drawn from the reports (24 indicators) and supplemented by five indicators commonly used in hospital quality reports. We analysed the differences in patient and physician ratings of relevance of all indicators by applying descriptive statistics, t-tests and Wilcoxon tests.ResultsOnly three indicators were considered not understandable by the interviewed patients and unsuitable by the interviewed physicians. The patients rated 19 indicators as highly or very relevant, whereas the physicians chose 15 indicators. The most relevant indicator for the patients was "qualification of doctors", and for the physicians "volume of specified surgical procedures". Patient and physician rankings of individual indicators differed for 25 indicators. However, three groups of indicators could be differentiated, in which the relevance ratings of patients and physicians differed only within the groups. Four of the five indicators that were added to the existing set of reported indicators ranked in the first or second group ("kindness of staff", "patient satisfaction", "recommendation", and "distance to place of living").ConclusionMost of the content of Germany's hospital quality reports seems to be useful for patients and physicians and influence their choice of hospitals. However, the target groups revealed that approximately one third of the indicators (mostly hospital structural characteristics), were not useful and hence could have been omitted from the reports. To enhance the usefulness of the reports, indicators on patient experiences should be added.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient-centred quality indicators allow health care systems to monitor and evaluate patient-centred care practices and identify gaps in health care quality. Our objective was to determine whether Canadian provinces and territories measure patient-centred care, identify patient-centred quality indicators currently being used and compare patient-centred care practices and measurement in Canada to those of health care systems in other countries. METHODS:An online survey was developed to collect data on demographic characteristics, patient-centred care practices, and indicators used at quality improvement organizations and health care authorities. The survey was conducted with quality improvement leads in Canada and 4 other countries. Content analysis methods were used to analyze and report the data. Patient-centred quality indicators were identified and categorized according to the Donabedian framework (structure, process, outcome). RESULTS:The survey had a response rate of 47/67 (70%) and a completion rate of 58/60 (97%). We obtained completed surveys from 12 of the 13 provinces and territories in Canada. Respondents from most provinces indicated their organization used patient-centred care measures to inform practices. Respondents in only 4 provinces/territories reported using patient-centred quality indicators, for a total of 61 unique indicators. Most indicators used across Canada assessed aspects of care related to the Donabedian components of process and outcome. Findings for Canada were comparable to those for Sweden, England, Australia and New Zealand, where many measures are still in development. INTERPRETATION:This study provided greater insight into patient-centred care measurement across Canada, Sweden, England, Australia and New Zealand and helped us to identify patient-centred quality indicators currently in use. These results will inform the development of a standard set of patient-centred quality indicators for implementation by health care organizations to improve the quality of health care.

Project description:The quality of cancer care has become a national priority; however, there are few ongoing efforts to assist medical oncology practices in identifying areas for improvement. The Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care is a consortium of 11 medical oncology practices that evaluates the quality of cancer care across Florida. Within this practice-based system of self-assessment, we determined adherence to colorectal cancer quality of care indicators (QCIs) in 2006, disseminated results to each practice and reassessed adherence in 2009. The current report focuses on evaluating the direction and magnitude of change in adherence to QCIs for colorectal cancer patients between the 2 assessments.Medical records were reviewed for all colorectal cancer patients seen by a medical oncologist in 2006 (n = 489) and 2009 (n = 511) at 10 participating practices. Thirty-five indicators were evaluated individually and changes in QCI adherence over time and by site were examined.Significant improvements were noted from 2006 to 2009, with large gains in surgical/pathological QCIs (eg, documenting rectal radial margin status, lymphovascular invasion, and the review of ? 12 lymph nodes) and medical oncology QCIs (documenting planned treatment regimen and providing recommended neoadjuvant regimens). Documentation of perineural invasion and radial margins significantly improved; however, adherence remained low (47% and 71%, respectively). There was significant variability in adherence for some QCIs across institutions at follow-up.The Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care practices conducted self-directed quality-improvement efforts during a 3-year interval and overall adherence to QCIs improved. However, adherence remained low for several indicators, suggesting that organized improvement efforts might be needed for QCIs that remained consistently low over time. Findings demonstrate how efforts such as the Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care are useful for evaluating and improving the quality of cancer care at a regional level.

Dataset Information

Quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery and care according to patient-, tumor-, and hospital-related factors.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery and care according to patient-, tumor-, and hospital-related factors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets