Clinical Governance Benchmarking Issues in Oncology: Aggressiveness of Cancer Care and Consumption of Strong Opioids. A Single-Center Experience on Measurement of Quality of Care

2010 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petros Giovanis ◽  
Giovanni De Leonardis ◽  
Antonella Garna ◽  
Viviana Lovat ◽  
Francesca Caldart ◽  
...  
QJM ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 111 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Adel ElHabashy ◽  
A Ahmed Abdel-Maksoud ◽  
S Mostafa Makkeyah ◽  
H El-Hosafy Hasan

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. e35-e37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Litton ◽  
Dianne Kane ◽  
Gina Clay ◽  
Patricia Kruger ◽  
Thomas Belnap ◽  
...  

If implemented appropriately, multidisciplinary clinics can enhance quality of care and increase downstream revenue. The multidisciplinary clinic at Intermountain Healthcare has greatly improved the cancer care process for patients, physicians, and the community.


2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (23) ◽  
pp. 3860-3866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig C. Earle ◽  
Mary Beth Landrum ◽  
Jeffrey M. Souza ◽  
Bridget A. Neville ◽  
Jane C. Weeks ◽  
...  

The purpose of this article is to review the literature and update analyses pertaining to the aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life. Specifically, we will discuss trends and factors responsible for chemotherapy overuse very near death and underutilization of hospice services. Whether the concept of overly aggressive treatment represents a quality-of-care issue that is acceptable to all involved stakeholders is an open question.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e048863
Author(s):  
Lisa Puglisi ◽  
Alexandra A Halberstam ◽  
Jenerius Aminawung ◽  
Colleen Gallagher ◽  
Lou Gonsalves ◽  
...  

IntroductionIncarceration is associated with decreased cancer screening rates and a higher risk for hospitalisation and death from cancer after release from prison. However, there is a paucity of data on the relationship between incarceration and cancer outcomes and quality of care. In the Incarceration and Cancer-Related Outcomes Study, we aim to develop a nuanced understanding of how incarceration affects cancer incidence, mortality and treatment, and moderates the relationship between socioeconomic status, structural racism and cancer disparities.Methods and analysisWe will use a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study design. We will create the first comprehensive linkage of data from the Connecticut Department of Correction and the statewide Connecticut Tumour Registry. Using the linked dataset, we will examine differences in cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis between individuals currently incarcerated, formerly incarcerated and never incarcerated in Connecticut from 2005 to 2016. Among individuals with invasive cancer, we will assess relationships among incarceration, quality of cancer care and mortality, and will assess the degree to which incarceration status moderates relationships among race, socioeconomic status, quality of cancer care and cancer mortality. We will use multivariable logistic regression and Cox survival models with interaction terms as appropriate. These results will inform our conduct of in-depth interviews with individuals diagnosed with cancer during or shortly after incarceration regarding their experiences with cancer care in the correctional system and the immediate postrelease period. The results of this qualitative work will help contextualise the results of the data linkage.Ethics and disseminationThe Yale University Institutional Review Board (#2000022899) and the Connecticut Department of Public Health Human Investigations Committee approved this study. We will disseminate study findings through peer-reviewed publications and academic and community presentations. Access to the deidentified quantitative and qualitative datasets will be made available on review of the request.


2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Di Leo ◽  
Paolo Biban ◽  
Federico Mercolini ◽  
Francesco Martinolli ◽  
Andrea Pettenazzo ◽  
...  

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

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 113-128
Author(s):  
Iman A. Ragab ◽  
Safinaz A. Elhabashy ◽  
Mohamed M. Dahab ◽  
Ahmed Ali Al-Molakab Atef Yassen

BMC Surgery ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carsten Kamphues ◽  
Sabine Engel ◽  
Timm Denecke ◽  
Roberta Bova ◽  
Michael Hippler-Benscheidt ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 2614-2614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne S. Mandelblatt ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz ◽  
Katherine L. Kahn

ABSTRACT: Cancer is an important disease, and health care services have the potential to improve the quality and quantity of life for cancer patients. The delivery of these services also has recently been well codified. Given this framework, cancer care presents a unique opportunity for clinicians to develop and test outcome measures across diverse practice settings. Recently, the Institute of Medicine released a report reviewing the quality of cancer care in the United States and called for further development and monitoring of quality indicators. Thus, as we move into the 21st century, professional and regulatory agencies will be seeking to expand process measures and develop and validate outcomes-oriented measures for cancer and other diseases. For such measures to be clinically relevant and feasible, it is key that the oncology community take an active leadership role in this process. To set the stage for such activities, this article first reviews broad methodologic concerns involved in selecting measures of the quality of care, using breast cancer to exemplify key issues. We then use the case of breast cancer to review the different phases of cancer care and provide examples of phase-specific measures that, after careful operationalization, testing, and validation, could be used as the basis of an agenda for measuring the quality of breast cancer care in oncology practice. The diffusion of process and outcome measures into practice; the practicality, reliability, and validity of these measures; and the impact that these indicators have on practice patterns and the health of populations will be key to evaluating the success of such quality-of-care paradigms. Ultimately, improved quality of care should translate into morbidity and mortality reductions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document