Dataset Information

'Care for Outcomes': systematic development of a set of outcome indicators to improve patient-relevant outcomes for patients with lung cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Measuring quality of care is important, however many of the quality indicators used do not focus on outcome of treatment and aspects which are valuable for patients and physicians. The project 'Care for Outcomes' aims to establish a relevant set of outcome indicators for lung cancer.

Setting

Network of seven large, non-university teaching hospitals in the Netherlands (Santeon).

Methods

By reviewing the literature, a list of potential outcome indicators for patients with lung cancer was composed and subsequently prioritised by expert's opinion. Three external parties, with expertise on lung cancer, clinical management and public health, evaluated and reduced the list of indicators to a working set. Finally, the resulting selection of outcome indicators was tested for feasibility and discrimination in patient data, by collecting retrospective data and performing regression and survival analyses.

Participants

Development of the indicator set in six Santeon hospitals. Retrospective cohort study in 5922 patients diagnosed with lung cancer (all types and stages).

Results

Selected outcome indicators were divided into three levels of outcome (tiers). The first tier about survival and the process of recovery include mortality, survival, positive resection margins, rethoracotomy after resection and quality of life at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months. Tier 2 concerning the sustainability of the recovery include complications after resection and toxicity after chemotherapy and/or radiation. Tier 3 about sustainability of health revealed no measurable outcomes. The retrospective data collection showed differences between hospitals and variation in case mix.

Conclusion

A relevant set of outcome indicators for lung cancer was systematically developed. This set has the potential to compare quality of care between hospitals and inform patients with lung cancer about outcomes. The project is ongoing in the current Santeon Value-Based Health Care programme through quality and improvement cycles.

SUBMITTER: Cramer-van der Welle CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7813396 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

'Care for Outcomes': systematic development of a set of outcome indicators to improve patient-relevant outcomes for patients with lung cancer.

Cramer-van der Welle Christine M CM van Loenhout Lotte L van den Borne Ben Eem BE Schramel Franz Mnh FM Dijksman Lea M LM

BMJ open 20210115 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>Measuring quality of care is important, however many of the quality indicators used do not focus on outcome of treatment and aspects which are valuable for patients and physicians. The project 'Care for Outcomes' aims to establish a relevant set of outcome indicators for lung cancer.<h4>Setting</h4>Network of seven large, non-university teaching hospitals in the Netherlands (Santeon).<h4>Methods</h4>By reviewing the literature, a list of potential outcome indicators for patien ...[more]

PMID: 33452199

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Measuring and improving outcomes is a central element of value-based health care. However, selecting improvement interventions based on outcome measures is complex and tools to support the selection process are lacking. The goal was to present strategies for the systematic identification and selection of improvement interventions applied to the case of aortic valve disease and to combine various methods of process and outcome assessment into one integrated approach for quality improvement. METHODS:For this case study a concept-driven mixed-method approach was applied for the identification of improvement intervention clusters including: (1) benchmarking outcomes, (2) data exploration, (3) care delivery process analysis, and (4) monitoring of ongoing improvements. The main outcome measures were long-term survival and 30-day mortality. For the selection of an improvement intervention, the causal relations between the potential improvement interventions and outcome measures were quantified followed by a team selection based on consensus from a multidisciplinary team of professionals. RESULTS:The study resulted in a toolbox: the Intervention Selection Toolbox (IST). The toolbox comprises two phases: (a) identifying potential for improvement, and (b) selecting an effective intervention from the four clusters expected to lead to the desired improvement in outcomes. The improvements identified for the case of aortic valve disease with impact on long-term survival in the context of the studied hospital in 2015 include: anticoagulation policy, increased attention to nutritional status of patients and determining frailty of patients before the treatment decision. CONCLUSIONS:Identifying potential for improvement and carefully selecting improvement interventions based on (clinical) outcome data demands a multifaceted approach. Our toolbox integrates both care delivery process analyses and outcome analyses. The toolbox is recommended for use in hospital care for the selection of high-impact improvement interventions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Limited data exist on health outcomes during pregnancy and childbirth in low- and middle-income countries. This is a pilot of an innovative data collection tool using mobile technology to collect patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) selected from the International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Pregnancy and Childbirth Standard Set in Nairobi, Kenya. METHODS:Pregnant women in the third trimester were recruited at three primary care facilities in Nairobi and followed prospectively throughout delivery and until six weeks postpartum. PROMs were collected via mobile surveys at three antenatal and two postnatal time points. Outcomes included incontinence, dyspareunia, mental health, breastfeeding and satisfaction with care. Hospitals reported morbidity and mortality. Descriptive statistics on maternal and child outcomes, survey completion and follow-up rates were calculated. RESULTS:In six months, 204 women were recruited: 50% of women returned for a second ante-natal care visit, 50% delivered at referral hospitals and 51% completed the postnatal visit. The completion rates for the five PROM surveys were highest at the first antenatal care visit (92%) and lowest in the postnatal care visit (38%). Data on depression, dyspareunia, fecal and urinary incontinence were successfully collected during the antenatal and postnatal period. At six weeks postpartum, 86% of women breastfeed exclusively. Most women that completed the survey were very satisfied with antenatal care (66%), delivery care (51%), and post-natal care (60%). CONCLUSION:We have demonstrated that it is feasible to use mobile technology to follow women throughout pregnancy, track their attendance to pre-natal and post-natal care visits and obtain data on PROM. This study demonstrates the potential of mobile technology to collect PROM in a low-resource setting. The data provide insight into the quality of maternal care services provided and will be used to identify and address gaps in access and provision of high quality care to pregnant women.

Project description:PurposeTranslating research evidence into clinical practice often uses key performance indicators to monitor quality of care. We conducted a systematic review to identify the stroke key performance indicators used in large registries, and to estimate their association with patient outcomes.MethodWe sought publications of recent (January 2000-May 2017) national or regional stroke registers reporting the association of key performance indicators with patient outcome (adjusting for age and stroke severity). We searched Ovid Medline, EMBASE and PubMed and screened references from bibliographies. We used an inverse variance random effects meta-analysis to estimate associations (odds ratio; 95% confidence interval) with death or poor outcome (death or disability) at the end of follow-up.FindingsWe identified 30 eligible studies (324,409 patients). The commonest key performance indicators were swallowing/nutritional assessment, stroke unit admission, antiplatelet use for ischaemic stroke, brain imaging and anticoagulant use for ischaemic stroke with atrial fibrillation, lipid management, deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis and early physiotherapy/mobilisation. Lower case fatality was associated with stroke unit admission (odds ratio 0.79; 0.72-0.87), swallow/nutritional assessment (odds ratio 0.78; 0.66-0.92) and antiplatelet use for ischaemic stroke (odds ratio 0.61; 0.50-0.74) or anticoagulant use for ischaemic stroke with atrial fibrillation (odds ratio 0.51; 0.43-0.64), lipid management (odds ratio 0.52; 0.38-0.71) and early physiotherapy or mobilisation (odds ratio 0.78; 0.67-0.91). Reduced poor outcome was associated with adherence to swallowing/nutritional assessment (odds ratio 0.58; 0.43-0.78) and stroke unit admission (odds ratio 0.83; 0.77-0.89). Adherence with several key performance indicators appeared to have an additive benefit.DiscussionAdherence with common key performance indicators was consistently associated with a lower risk of death or disability after stroke.ConclusionPolicy makers and health care professionals should implement and monitor those key performance indicators supported by good evidence.

Project description:BackgroundWith respect to patient-centered care, measuring care effects based on patient-relevant outcomes is becoming increasingly important. There is some uncertainty about what outcomes are particularly relevant to patients and who determines their relevance. To determine this, we conducted a scoping review of the international literature with the aim to improve the conceptual clarity regarding (1) the terminology used for supposedly patient-relevant outcomes, (2) the variety of outcomes considered patient-relevant, and (3) justifications for the choice of these specific outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search in Embase, PubMed (including Medline), Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Google Scholar with a special focus on article titles. Search terms included patient-relevant, patient-important, patient-preferred, and outcome(s), endpoint(s), parameter(s), indicator(s). We limited the search period from January 2000 to July 2019. Full-text articles reporting outcomes that were described as patient-relevant met the inclusion criteria. Two researchers independently analyzed all eligible articles applying quantitative and structuring content analysis.ResultsWe identified 155 articles, 44 of which met the inclusion criteria. A content analysis revealed 35 different terms used with regard to patient-relevant outcomes. However, authors predominantly referred to patient-important outcomes (23 articles, 52.3%) and patient-relevant outcomes (17 articles, 38.6%). A structuring content analysis of all extracted outcomes revealed a total of 281 codes, pooled in 32 inductive categories. Among these, the following categories dominated: symptoms, adverse events/complications, survival/mortality, pain. In just 16 of the articles (36.4%), authors provided justifications for the choice of the outcome being based either on patient and/or expert opinions. In another 13 articles (29.5%), no justification was provided.ConclusionThis scoping review on patient-relevant outcomes was driven by the questions (1) what outcomes are particularly relevant to patients, and (2) who determines their relevance. We found a wide range of supposedly patient-relevant outcomes, with only one third of articles involving patients in the justification of the outcome selection. In view of this conceptual uncertainty it appears difficult to determine or even to compare a particular patient benefit of interventions. A set of generic outcomes relevant to patients would be helpful to contribute to a consistent understanding of patient relevance.

Dataset Information

'Care for Outcomes': systematic development of a set of outcome indicators to improve patient-relevant outcomes for patients with lung cancer.

Objectives

Setting

Methods

Participants

Results

Conclusion

Publications

'Care for Outcomes': systematic development of a set of outcome indicators to improve patient-relevant outcomes for patients with lung cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets