Dataset Information

Regional variation in quality of prostate cancer care.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Despite the endorsement of several quality measures for prostate cancer by the National Quality Forum and the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement, how consistently physicians adhere to these measures has not been examined. We evaluated regional variation in adherence to these quality measures to identify targets for future quality improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS:For this retrospective cohort study we used SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare data for 2001 to 2007 to identify 53,614 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Patients were assigned to 661 regions (Hospital Service Areas). Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to examine reliability adjusted regional adherence to the endorsed quality measures. RESULTS:Adherence at the patient level was highly variable, ranging from 33% for treatment by a high volume provider to 76% for receipt of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy while undergoing radiotherapy for high risk cancer. In addition, there was considerable regional variation in adherence to several measures, including pretreatment counseling by a urologist and radiation oncologist (range 9% to 89%, p <0.001), avoiding overuse of bone scans in low risk cancer (range 16% to 96%, p <0.001), treatment by a high volume provider (range 1% to 90%, p <0.001) and followup with radiation oncologists (range 14% to 86%, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS:We found low adherence rates for most established prostate cancer quality of care measures. Within most measures regional variation in adherence was pronounced. Measures with low adherence and a large amount of regional variation may be important low hanging targets for quality improvement.

SUBMITTER: Schroeck FR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3980045 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Regional variation in quality of prostate cancer care.

Schroeck Florian R FR Kaufman Samuel R SR Jacobs Bruce L BL Skolarus Ted A TA Hollingsworth John M JM Shahinian Vahakn B VB Hollenbeck Brent K BK

The Journal of urology 20131019 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>Despite the endorsement of several quality measures for prostate cancer by the National Quality Forum and the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement, how consistently physicians adhere to these measures has not been examined. We evaluated regional variation in adherence to these quality measures to identify targets for future quality improvement.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>For this retrospective cohort study we used SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-M ...[more]

PMID: 24144685

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceActive surveillance (AS) is now recognized as the preferred management option for most low-risk prostate cancers to minimize risks of overtreatment. Despite increasing use of AS in the US, wide regional variability has been observed, and these regional variations in contemporary practice have not been well described.ObjectiveTo explore variations between county and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) regions in AS in the US.Design, setting, and participantsA cohort study using the SEER Prostate with Watchful Waiting (WW) database linked to the County Area Health Resource File for detailed county-level demographics and physician distribution data was conducted from January 2010 to December 2015. Analysis was performed in October 2020. A total of 79 825 men with clinically localized, low-risk prostate cancer eligible for AS or WW were included.ExposuresMultiple patient-, county-, and SEER region-level factors, including age, year of diagnosis, county-level densities of urologists, radiation oncologists, primary care physicians, and SEER registry region.Main outcomes and measuresUse of AS or WW as the initial reported treatment strategy were noted. Hierarchical mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to evaluate clustered random regional variation on use of AS or WW. Temporal trends by year in proportions of initial treatment type, as well as county-level local variation, were also estimated.ResultsOf 79 825 men (mean [SD] age, 62.8 [7.6] years, 11 292 [14.1%] non-Hispanic Black, 7506 [9.4%] Hispanic) with low-risk prostate cancer, the mean annualized percent increase in AS rates from 2010 to 2015 ranged from 6.3% in New Mexico to 81.0% in New Jersey. Differences across SEER regions accounted for 17% of the total variation in AS. Increasing age (51-60 years: odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.21-1.46; 61-70 years: OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.70-2.04; 71-80 years: OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 2.05-2.50) was associated with greater odds of AS. Hispanic ethnicity (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.85), T category (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84), and Medicaid enrollment (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.81) were associated with lower odds of AS. Black race, county-level socioeconomic factors (household income, educational level, and city type), and specialist densities were not associated with AS use.Conclusions and relevanceIn this US cohort study based on the SEER-WW database, although the use of AS increased, considerable practice variation appeared to be associated with geographic location, but use of AS was not associated with Black race, specialty professional density, or socioeconomic factors. This small area variation underlies the broader national trends in AS practice and may inform policies aimed at continuing to affect risk-appropriate care for men throughout the US.

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:Background/objectiveAdvance care planning (ACP) is associated with improved patient and caregiver outcomes, but is underutilized. To encourage ACP, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented specific ACP visit reimbursement codes in 2016. To better understand the utilization of these ACP reimbursement codes, we explored regional variation in billed ACP visits.DesignWe performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis using a randomly sampled 5% cohort of Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries' claims files from 2017. Region was defined by hospital referral region.SettingNational Medicare FFS.ParticipantsA total of 1.3 million Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older.MeasurementReceipt of billed ACP service, identified through Current Procedural Terminology code 99497 or 99498. Proportion of beneficiaries who received billed ACP service(s) by region was calculated. We fit a multilevel logistic regression model with a random regional intercept to determine the variation in billed ACP visits attributable to the region after accounting for patient (demographics, comorbidities, and medical care utilization) and regional factors (hospital size, emergency department visits, hospice utilization, and costs).ResultsThe study population included about 1.3 million beneficiaries, of which 32,137 (2.4%) had at least one billed ACP visit in 2017. There was substantial regional variation in the percentage of beneficiaries with billed ACP visits: lowest quintile region, less than 0.83%; subsequent regions, less than 1.6%, less than 2.4%, less than 3.3% to less than 8.4% in the highest quintile regions. A total of 15.4% of the variance in whether an older adult had a billed ACP visit was explained by the region. Although numerous regional factors were associated with billed ACP visits, none were strong predictors.ConclusionIn 2017, we found wide regional variation in the use of billed ACP visits, although use overall was low in all regions. Increasing the understanding of the drivers and the effects of billed ACP visits could inform strategies for increasing ACP.

Dataset Information

Regional variation in quality of prostate cancer care.

Publications

Regional variation in quality of prostate cancer care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets