Dataset Information

Assessment of potential process quality indicators for systemic treatment of breast cancer in Belgium: a population-based study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Quality indicators (QIs) for the management of breast cancer (BC) have been published in Europe and internationally. In Belgium, a task force was established to select measurable process indicators of systemic treatment for BC, focusing on appropriateness of delivered care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the results of the selected QIs, both nationally and among individual centres.

Patients and methods

Female Belgian residents with unilateral primary invasive BC diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 were selected from the Belgian Cancer Registry database. The national number enabled linkage with the national reimbursement database, which contains information on all reimbursed medical procedures. A total of 12 process indicators were measured on the population and hospital level. Intercentre variability was assessed by median results and interquartile ranges.

Results

A total of 48 872 patients were included in the study. QIs concerning specific BC subtypes only applied to patients diagnosed in 2014 (n = 9855). Clinical stage (cStage) I patients (n = 17 116) were staged with positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Among patients who were pT1aN0 human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive (n = 47), 25.5% (n = 12) received adjuvant trastuzumab. Among patients with de novo metastatic luminal A/B-like HER2-negative BC (n = 295), 17.3% (n = 51) received upfront chemotherapy. (Neo)adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 52.4% (n = 12 592) of operated women with cStage I-III, in 37.0% (n = 1270) of operated women with cStage I-III luminal A/B-like HER2-negative BC, and in 19.1% of operated women with cStage I luminal A/B-like HER2-negative BC. In the population of operated patients with cStage I-III, of those younger than 70 years that started adjuvant endocrine therapy (n = 3591), 81.7% (n = 2932) continued treatment for ≥4.5 years. Among patients in cStage I-III older than 70 years (n = 8544), 19.0% (n = 1622) received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, whereas among patients with cStage I-III luminal A/B-like HER2-negative BC (n = 1388), 13.0% (n = 181) received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. In patients with cStage I-II luminal A/B-like HER2-negative BC older than 70 years (n = 1477), 11.6% (n = 171) were not operated and received upfront endocrine treatment.

Conclusion

Well-considered QIs using population-based data can evaluate quality of care and expose disparities among treatment centres. Their use in daily practice should be implemented in all centres treating BC.

SUBMITTER: van Walle L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8319479 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Reporting the results of quality indicators can narrow the gap in the quality of care between hospitals. While most studies rely on outcome indicators, they may not accurately measure the quality of care. Process indicators are not only strongly associated with treatment outcomes, but are also more sensitive to whether patients are treated accurately, enabling timely intervention. Our study aims to investigate whether process indicators provide a more reasonable assessment of hospital quality of care compared to outcome indicators. Data were sourced from the Specific Disease Medical Service Quality Management and Control System in China. A total of 113,942 patients with breast cancer treated in 298 hospitals between January 2019 and April 2023 were included in this retrospective study. The rankability of 11 process indicators was calculated and used as a weight to create a new composite indicator. The composite indicators and outcome measures were compared using the O/E ratio categories. Finally, in order to determine the impact of different years on the results, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using bootstrap sampling. The rankability ( ρ ) values of the eleven process indicators showed significant differences, with the highest ρ value for preoperative cytological or histological examination before surgery (0.919). The ρ value for the outcome indicator was 0.011. The rankability-weighting method yielded a comprehensive score ( ρ = 0.883). The comparison with categorical results of the outcome indicator has different performance classifications for 113 hospitals (37.92%) for composite scores and 140 (46.98%) for preoperative cytological or histological examinationbefore surgery. Process indicators are more suitable than outcome indicators for assessing the quality of breast cancer care in hospitals. Healthcare providers can use process indicators to identify specific areas for improvement, thereby driving continuous quality improvement efforts.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify existing quality indicators (QIs) for diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of patients with infectious diseases in primary care.DesignA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE. We included studies with a description of the development of QIs for diagnosis and antibiotic use in patients with infectious diseases in primary care. We extracted information about (1) type of infection; (2) target for quality assessment; (3) methodology used for developing the QIs; and (4) whether the QIs were developed for a national or international application. The QIs were organised into three categories: (1) QIs focusing on the diagnostic process; (2) QIs focusing on the decision to prescribe antibiotics; and (3) QIs concerning the choice of antibiotics.ResultsEleven studies were included in this review and a total of 130 QIs were identified. The majority (72%) of the QIs were focusing on choice of antibiotics, 22% concerned the decision to prescribe antibiotics, and few (6%) concerned the diagnostic process. Most QIs were either related to respiratory tract infections or not related to any type of infection. A consensus method (mainly the Delphi technique), based on either a literature study or national guidelines, was used for the development of QIs in all of the studies.ConclusionsThe small number of existing QIs predominantly focuses on the choice of antibiotics and is often drug-specific. There is a remarkable lack of diagnostic QIs. Future development of new QIs, especially disease-specific QIs concerning the diagnostic process, is needed. KEY POINTS In order to improve the use of antibiotics in primary care, measurable instruments, such as quality indicators, are needed to assess the quality of care being provided. A total of 11 studies were found, including 130 quality indicators for diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of infectious diseases in primary care. The majority of the identified quality indicators were focusing on the choice of antibiotics and only a few concerned the diagnostic process. All quality indicators were developed by means of a consensus method and were often based on literature studies or guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundIndicators are essential instruments for monitoring and evaluating population health. The selection of a multidimensional set of indicators should not only reflect the scientific evidence on health outcomes and health determinants, but also the views of health experts and stakeholders. The aim of this study is to describe the Delphi selection process designed to promote agreement on indicators considered relevant to evaluate population health at the European regional level.MethodsIndicators were selected in a Delphi survey conducted using a web-platform designed to implement and monitor participatory processes. It involved a panel of 51 experts and 30 stakeholders from different areas of knowledge and geographies. In three consecutive rounds the panel indicated their level of agreement or disagreement with indicator's relevance for evaluating population health in Europe. Inferential statistics were applied to draw conclusions on observed level of agreement (Scott's Pi interrater reliability coefficient) and opinion change (McNemar Chi-square test). Multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to check if the field of expertise influenced the panellist responses (Wilk's Lambda test).ResultsThe panel participated extensively in the study (overall response rate: 80%). Eighty indicators reached group agreement for selection in the areas of: economic and social environment (12); demographic change (5); lifestyle and health behaviours (8); physical environment (6); built environment (12); healthcare services (11) and health outcomes (26). Higher convergence of group opinion towards agreement on the relevance of indicators was seen for lifestyle and health behaviours, healthcare services, and health outcomes. The panellists' field of expertise influenced responses: statistically significant differences were found for economic and social environment (p < 0.05 in round 1 and 2), physical environment (p < 0.01 in round 1) and health outcomes (p < 0.01 in round 3).ConclusionsThe high levels of participation observed in this study, by involving experts and stakeholders and ascertaining their views, underpinned the added value of using a transparent Web-Delphi process to promote agreement on what indicators are relevant to appraise population health.