On the Road to Improving the Quality of Breast Cancer Care

Medical Care ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 46 (8) ◽  
pp. 759-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne S. Mandelblatt ◽  
Arnold L. Potosky
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Breast Cancer Care ◽  
The Road ◽  
On The Road

The patient’s perspective of the quality of breast cancer care

2007 ◽  
Vol 43 (8) ◽  
pp. 1257-1264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mascha de Kok ◽  
Rachel W. Scholte ◽  
Herman J. Sixma ◽  
Trudy van der Weijden ◽  
Karin F. Spijkers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Breast Cancer Care ◽  
Patient’S Perspective

Improving the organisation of breast cancer care increases quality of care while reducing costs

2004 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 113
Author(s):  
G.L Beets ◽  
C.N.A Frotscher ◽  
C.D Dirksen ◽  
M.H Hebly ◽  
M.F von Meyenfeldt
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Breast Cancer Care ◽  
Reducing Costs

Quality of care for breast cancer patients in Japan: An analysis of the Japanese Breast Cancer Registry

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6547-6547
Author(s):  
H. Mukai ◽  
T. Higashi ◽  
T. Iwase ◽  
T. Sobue
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Registry ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Breast Cancer Care ◽  
Recommended Care ◽  
Adherence Score ◽  
Breast Cancer Registry

6547 Background: In Japan, growing concern that patients do not receive optimum care led to the enactment of the Cancer Control Act in 2006, which mandates the government to undertake initiatives in ensuring the quality of cancer care. Here, we evaluated the current status of breast cancer care in Japan using process-of-care quality indicators (QIs) for breast cancer care. Methods: Combining clinical evidence and expert opinion, we developed 45 QIs covering the continuum of breast cancer care from initial evaluation to follow-up. Each QI describes standards of a particular aspect of care, and its score is calculated as the percentage of applicable patients who received the recommended care (adherence score). Of the 45 QIs, 7 could be scored using data in the Japanese Breast Cancer Registry, which covers about 40% of all Japanese breast cancer patients and has been continuously maintained since 1975. Results: The study population included 15,227 patients registered by 224 facilities in 2005. On average, patients received 72.1% of recommended care. However, substantial variation in adherence was seen across QIs (21–98%). Adherence score was less than 85% in five of seven QIs. Variation across facilities was observed in six QIs. Conclusions: The quality of breast cancer care in Japan has room for improvement in many aspects of care. Although the amount of data in the cancer registry suitable for quality assessment is limited, it is useful in detecting quality problems. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Assessing the quality of breast cancer care in cancer center hospitals in Japan.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16566-e16566 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Higashi ◽  
F. Nakamura ◽  
H. Mukai ◽  
T. Sobue ◽  
E. Mekata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Breast Cancer Care

Using a disease pathway management approach to improve the quality of breast cancer care in Ontario.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 109-109
Author(s):  
Andrea Eisen ◽  
Jasmin Soobrian ◽  
Ashley Tyrrell ◽  
Clement Li ◽  
Derek Muradali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Performance Measurement ◽  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Breast Cancer Care ◽  
Patient Journey ◽  
The Impact

109 Background: Disease Pathway Management (DPM) is used by Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) to set priorities for cancer control, plan cancer services, and improve the quality of care in Ontario by promoting standardization. The DPM approach applies a framework to examine the performance of the entire system from prevention to end of life care, and to identify any gaps within the system. In 2014, DPM began its breast cancer pathway initiative by mapping the patient journey, depicting evidence-based best practice along the breast cancer care continuum, identifying where further guidance is needed for clinical decision making, and identifying gaps in quality of care and performance measurement indicators. Objective: To evaluate the impact of DPM on quality assessment of breast cancer care in Ontario. Methods: DPM convened a multidisciplinary breast cancer working group (WG) of 40 experts from across Ontario. The WG held 12 meetings and used guidelines developed by CCO’s Program in Evidence Based Care (or other sources as needed) to generate pathways for the prevention, screening and diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up care for breast cancer. The pathways were used as a framework to review the existing inventory of provincial breast cancer quality indicators, and to identify areas where evidence based guidance is needed. The pathways were subjected to an extensive review process before publication. Results: The expert WG identified 28 priority areas, including opportunities to develop guidance in areas where it is lacking (e.g. role of perioperative breast MRI; indications for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy) and system barriers that may hinder optimal care (e.g. biomarker assessment). The WG also used the pathways as a framework for evaluating performance measurement indicators by mapping 48 existing quality indicators for breast cancer to the pathway. Conclusions: The CCO DPM Breast Cancer pathways facilitated a province-wide, multidisciplinary process to promote quality standards, to identify gaps and overlaps in performance and quality measurement, and to recommend additional indicators more relevant to the quality of breast cancer care in Ontario.

The quality of breast cancer quality measures.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 108-108
Author(s):  
Whitney Lane ◽  
Christel Rushing ◽  
Daniel Nussbaum ◽  
Dan G. Blazer ◽  
Rachel Adams Greenup
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Patient Preference ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Performance Metrics ◽  
Prophylactic Mastectomy ◽  
Patient Choice ◽  
Breast Cancer Care ◽  
Cancer Data ◽  
Breast Care

108 Background: To assess quality in breast cancer care, standardized metrics are needed. Many accepted breast performance metrics are based on evidence-based practice; however, most fail to reflect patient choice in treatment decisions. Given the focus on patient-centered breast care, we sought to determine how compliance with established quality metrics correlates with receipt of breast cancer care impacted by patient preference. Methods: American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Cancer Data Base facilities were designated compliant or non-compliant based on Commission of Cancer (CoC) breast metrics MASTRT, BCSRT and HT*, which all improve survival. Compliant facilities met the expected performance rate (EPR) for all three metrics, while non-compliant facilities failed to meet the EPR for any. Rates of breast conserving surgery (BCS) for early stage cancer, immediate breast reconstruction (IBR), and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) are proposed metrics that are impacted by patient preference. For these, quality is defined as high rates of BCS, high rates of IBR, and low rates of CPM. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between facility level rates on these measures and the probability of treatment at a CoC compliant facility. Results: 729 facilities were included in the analysis. Based on the CoC measures, 79 (10.8%) were considered compliant and 650 (89.2%) non-compliant. Rates of BCS and IBR did not differ between compliant and non-compliant facilities; however, women treated at compliant facilities were more likely to undergo CPM (26.3% vs 21.4%; p = 0.02). In a multivariate model treatment at compliant facilities was associated with higher rates of BCS, IBR, and CPM; however, the predictive value of these metrics was minimal (Estimated OR range: 1.01-1.03). Conclusions: Rates of preference driven therapies do not differentiate CoC compliant and non-compliant hospitals. The quality of a hospital’s breast care is likely poorly measured by metrics that are influenced by, but cannot account for patient values. *MASTRT (RT≤1yr of diagnosis in women with ≥4 +lymph nodes); BCSRT (RT ≤1yr of diagnosis for women ≤70 receiving BCS); HT (hormone therapy recommended ≤1yr of diagnosis for HR-positive breast cancer)

scholarly journals Many quality measurements, but few quality measures assessing the quality of breast cancer care in women: A systematic review

BMC Cancer ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard M Schachter ◽  
Vasil Mamaladze ◽  
Gabriela Lewin ◽  
Ian D Graham ◽  
Melissa Brouwers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Quality Measures ◽  
Breast Cancer Care ◽  
Quality Measurements
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document