Assessing the quality of colorectal cancer care: do we have appropriate quality measures? (A systematic review of literature)

2007 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 070909172346001-??? ◽  
Author(s):  
Meenal Patwardhan ◽  
Deborah A. Fisher ◽  
Christopher R. Mantyh ◽  
Douglas C. McCrory ◽  
Michael A. Morse ◽  
...  
BMC Cancer ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard M Schachter ◽  
Vasil Mamaladze ◽  
Gabriela Lewin ◽  
Ian D Graham ◽  
Melissa Brouwers ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 626-634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L. Malin ◽  
Eric C. Schneider ◽  
Arnold M. Epstein ◽  
John Adams ◽  
Ezekiel J. Emanuel ◽  
...  

Purpose In 1999, the National Cancer Policy Board called attention to the quality of cancer care in the United States and recommended establishing a quality monitoring system with the capability of regularly reporting on the quality of care for patients with cancer. Methods Using data from a patient survey 4 years after diagnosis and review of medical records, we determined the percentage of stage I to III breast cancer and stage II to III colorectal cancer survivors in five metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) across the United States who received recommended care specified by a comprehensive set of explicit quality measures. Results Two thousand three hundred sixty-six (63%) of 3,775 eligible patients responded to the survey, and 85% consented to have their medical records reviewed. Our final analytic sample (n = 1,765) included 47% of the eligible patients. Patients with breast and colorectal cancer received 86% of recommended care (95% CI, 86% to 87%) and 78% of recommended care (95% CI, 77% to 79%), respectively. Adherence to quality measures was less than 85% for 18 of the 36 breast cancer measures, and significant variation across MSAs was observed for seven quality measures. The percent adherence was less than 85% for 14 of the 25 colorectal cancer measures, and one quality measure demonstrated statistically significant variation across the MSAs. Conclusion Initial management of patients with breast and colorectal cancer in the United States seemed consistent with evidence-based practice; however, substantial variation in adherence to some quality measures point to significant opportunities for improvement.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e044472
Author(s):  
Saar Hommes ◽  
Ruben Vromans ◽  
Felix Clouth ◽  
Xander Verbeek ◽  
Ignace de Hingh ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources.Eligibility criteriaDAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I–III.Data extraction and synthesisAfter the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist.ResultsIn total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language.ConclusionsBoth instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice.


Cancer ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (23) ◽  
pp. 5497-5506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Signe Smith Nielsen ◽  
Yulei He ◽  
John Z. Ayanian ◽  
Scarlett Lin Gomez ◽  
Katherine L. Kahn ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chloé Gervès-Pinquié ◽  
Anne Girault ◽  
Serena Phillips ◽  
Sarah Raskin ◽  
Mandi Pratt-Chapman

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 184-184
Author(s):  
Katherine Enright ◽  
Rosemary Ku ◽  
Daniela Gallo-Hershberg ◽  
Aliya Pardhan ◽  
Leta Marie Forbes

184 Background: Oral systemic therapy (ST) presents unique care delivery challenges. Gaps in patient education and monitoring for patients on oral ST delivery are well documented and can result in decreased adherence or increased toxicity. Within Ontario, cancer care is provincially coordinated through Ontario Health- Cancer Care Ontario (OH-CCO), but locally implemented by 14 Regional Cancer Programs (RCPs). Using a centrally coordinated, but regionally implemented quality improvement (QI) approach, we aimed to improve the quality of oral ST delivery across Ontario by enabling the use of patient specific monitoring plans to optimize treatment adherence and toxicity management. Methods: Between 2018 and 2020 a 2 year focused QI project was undertaken. A suite of 19 quality measures were developed to measure different quality domains for oral ST delivery including treatment plan documentation, patient education, toxicity/adherence monitoring and toxicity outcomes. In year 1, all regions used the suite of quality measures to establish baseline performance and develop a QI plan using rapid cycle improvement methodology to improve performance in at least 1 domain based on regional gaps and priorities. Projects were implemented and evaluated during year 2. OH-CCO provided QI coaching through dissemination of standardized QI tools, a monthly discussion forum and project specific feedback. At the end of year 2, a post-implementation evaluation was performed for each region. Results: 15 centers participated, representing all RCPs across Ontario. The participating centers implemented QI projects focused on treatment plan documentation (N = 3), patient education (N = 10) and toxicity/adherence management (N = 5), with some focusing on multiple domains. All centers reported an improvement in at least 1 domain (see Table). Key enablers identified include engagement with a multi-disciplinary team and the use of technology, while barriers include lack of onsite dispensing pharmacy. Future work will continue to focus on quality of oral ST delivery and better pharmacy integration. Conclusions: Through a centrally coordinated, locally implemented QI project, improvement in quality of oral ST care was achieved across Ontario. This model of QI focus has the potential to be adaptable across health systems. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document