Optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate in breast cancer: setting an evidence-based benchmark for the best-quality cancer care

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6613-6613
Author(s):  
W. L. Ng ◽  
G. Delaney ◽  
S. Jacob ◽  
M. Barton
2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 273-273
Author(s):  
Kristen Fessele ◽  
Susan Yendro ◽  
Gail Mallory ◽  

273 Background: QM focused on areas illustrating high-quality cancer care valued by nurses and patients are needed to complement existing measures in the ambulatory oncology setting. ONS has utilized a reproducible process for pilot testing two sets of evidence-based QM for validity and reliability in the breast cancer population, drawing on evidence from ONS Putting Evidence into Practice (PEP), Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations and other resources. Methods: The ONS Foundation supported teams of expert nurses to review evidence, draft and prioritize topic areas for potential QM. Final QM were selected after soliciting national public comment from stakeholders, and were judged on importance to clinical care, prevalence and potential for impact, scientific basis and link between process and outcome. The Joint Commission (TJC) was contracted to conduct testing, and diverse pilot sites were recruited to perform retrospective data abstraction on patient charts. The Breast Cancer Care (BCC) QM set focused on symptom management for patients receiving chemotherapy, and the Breast Cancer Survivorship (BCS) set explores needs in the first year post-treatment. TJC and ONS staff co-managed development of QM specifications, abstractor training, clinical and technical support of pilot sites, and re-abstracted 15% of 2,835 submitted cases for reliability testing. Results: QM scores were examined for gaps in care; there are clear opportunities to improve the consistency of symptom assessment and management. Symptom intensity, trajectory over time, success/failure of interventions are frequently undocumented, impacting coordination of care. Post-treatment/transition to survivorship education and resource provision as recommended by the IOM are lacking. Conclusions: Audit and feedback to practices using valid and reliable QM provide a strategy to link high-level evidence-based interventions and practice changes to improve quality cancer care. National testing across diverse practice sites illustrates a strong need to improve the consistency of symptom assessment/management and post-treatment survivorship interventions.


Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Stangl ◽  
Sebastian Rauch ◽  
Jürgen Rauh ◽  
Martin Meyer ◽  
Jacqueline Müller‐Nordhorn ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 109-109
Author(s):  
Andrea Eisen ◽  
Jasmin Soobrian ◽  
Ashley Tyrrell ◽  
Clement Li ◽  
Derek Muradali ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document