scholarly journals Implementation of a Hospital-Based Quality Assessment Program for Rectal Cancer

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e120-e129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Hendren ◽  
Ellen McKeown ◽  
Arden M. Morris ◽  
Sandra L. Wong ◽  
Mary Oerline ◽  
...  

A program linking tumor registry data to quality-improvement data for rectal cancer quality assessment was successfully implemented in 10 hospitals. This program can serve as a template for organizations interested in improving the quality of rectal cancer care.

10.2196/15535 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e15535
Author(s):  
Amandeep Pooni ◽  
Selina Schmocker ◽  
Carl Brown ◽  
Anthony MacLean ◽  
Lara Williams ◽  
...  

Background Over the last 2 decades, the use of multimodal strategies, including total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery, preoperative chemotherapy, multidisciplinary case conference, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, and pathologic assessment using Quirke method, has led to significant improvements in oncologic outcomes for patients with rectal cancer. Although the literature supports claims on the effectiveness of these multimodal strategies, the uptake of these multimodal strategies varies considerably among centers, suggesting that the best evidence is not always implemented into clinical practice. Objective This study aims to perform a quality improvement initiative to (1) identify existing gaps in care for these multimodal strategies and (2) implement knowledge translation (KT) interventions to close these gaps to optimize quality of care for patients with rectal cancer across high-volume centers in Canada. Methods Process indicators for the selected multimodal strategies to optimize rectal cancer care will be selected and prospectively collected for all patients with stages 1 to 3 rectal cancer undergoing TME surgery. KT interventions, including audit and feedback, opinion leaders, and community of practice, will be implemented to increase the uptake of these clinical strategies. Results The uptake of the process indicators over time and the effect of the uptake of the process indicators on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes will be evaluated for each multimodal strategy. Conclusions This quality improvement initiative will identify existing gaps in care for the selected multimodal strategies and implement KT interventions to close these gaps. The results of this study will inform further efforts to optimize rectal cancer care. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/15535


2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 284-286
Author(s):  
Eric C. Schneider

Insurers and payers are demanding performance measurement, whereas professional boards are urging practice-based quality improvement projects. Will these two streams improve day-to-day practice or add administrative burden?


2018 ◽  
Vol 227 (4) ◽  
pp. S150
Author(s):  
Kerui Xu ◽  
Charles W. Acher ◽  
Nick A. Zaborek ◽  
Jessica R. Schumacher ◽  
Elise H. Lawson
Keyword(s):  

Healthcare ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Beth Arensberg ◽  
Julie Richards ◽  
Jyoti Benjamin ◽  
Kirk Kerr ◽  
Refaat Hegazi

Malnutrition in patients with cancer is a ubiquitous but neglected problem that can reduce patient survival/quality of life and increase treatment interruptions, readmission rates, and healthcare costs. Malnutrition interventions, including nutrition support through dietary counseling, diet fortification, oral nutrition supplements (ONS), and enteral and parenteral nutrition can help improve health outcomes. However, nutritional care standards and interventions for cancer are ambiguous and inconsistently applied. The lack of systematic malnutrition screening and intervention in ambulatory cancer care has especially significant consequences and thus the nutrition support of patients with cancer represents an area for quality improvement. United States healthcare payment models such as the Oncology Care Model are linked to quality of care and health outcomes. Quality improvement programs (QIPs) can advance patient-centered care, perfect care processes, and help healthcare professionals meet their quality measure performance goals. Malnutrition QIPs like the Malnutrition Quality Improvement Initiative (MQii) have been shown to be effective in identifying and treating malnutrition. However, little is known about or has been reported on nutrition or malnutrition-focused QIPs in cancer care. This paper provides information to support translational research on quality improvement and outlines the gaps and potential opportunities for QIPs in the nutrition support of patients with cancer.


2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
G Brown ◽  
A Young ◽  
R Rymell

Abstract Aim MDT discussion is the gold standard for cancer care in the UK. With the cancer incidence and complexity of treatments both increasing, demand for MDT discussion is growing. The need for efficiency, whilst maintaining high standards, is therefore clear. Paper-based MDT quality assessment tools and discussion checklists may represent a practical method of monitoring and improving MDT practice. This review aims to describe and appraise these tools, as well as consider their value to quality improvement. Method MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo were searched using pre-defined terms. PRISMA methodology was followed throughout. Studies were included if they described the development of a relevant tool/checklist, or if an element of the methodology further informed tool quality assessment. To investigate efficacy, studies using a tool as a method of quality improvement in MDT practice were also included. Study quality was appraised using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on study type. Results The search returned 6888 results. 17 studies were included, and 6 different tools were identified. Overall, methodological quality in tool development was adequate to very good for assessed aspects of validity and reliability. Clinician feedback was positive. In one study, the introduction of a discussion checklist improved MDT ability to reach a decision from 82.2% to 92.7%. Improvement was also noted in the quality of information presented and the quality of teamwork. Conclusions Several tools for assessing and guiding MDT discussions are available. Although limited, current evidence indicates sufficient rigour in their development and their potential for quality improvement.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 670-670
Author(s):  
Laurence E. McCahill ◽  
Jamie Kokko ◽  
Chris Werkemma ◽  
Pierson Ebrom ◽  
Sarat Khandavalli

670 Background: Institute of Medicine report calls for improved quality of cancer care. Numerous entities have sought measures of health care quality, but there is limited consensus regarding metrics for quality of colorectal cancer (CRC) care. Current measures are very limited; there exist no comprehensive metrics for quality of CRC care across the continuum of care. We sought to identify robust quality metrics, including measures related to pathology, coordination of cancer care, surgery, radiation, chemotherapy and surveillance, in order to identify gaps in quality of CRC care. Methods: National guidelines (NCCN and ASCO), National Quality Forum, and select peer reviewed publications were reviewed to develop evidence based metrics to assess quality of CRC care from diagnosis to post treatment surveillance and survivorship. A core group of health care providers, including a surgical oncologist, a pathologist and a Cancer nurse practitioner developed the metrics based on literature review. Measures were reviewed by key physician stakeholders including Radiation Oncology, Medical Oncology, General surgery, and Gastroenterology to obtain support for the quality initiative at our institution. Results: Twenty-three quality metrics were developed including 6 metrics related to access and process, 6 related to pathology, 7 related to multidisciplinary care and 4 measures related to surveillance and survivorship. Novel metrics included documentation of a three generational cancer family history, documentation of preoperative CT imaging of chest/abdomen/pelvis, MSI and KRAS testing in specific populations, appropriate pre-operative radiation oncologist evaluation for rectal cancer, multidisciplinary team planning prior to treatment initiation for rectal cancer and patients with newly identified liver metastases, appropriate referral for genetic counseling and surveillance annual CT scans for 3 years post treatment. Conclusions: These novel and comprehensive metrics allow for detailed review of the quality of CRC care received by patients at our institution. Individual patient data are currently being abstracted to assess the utility and logistics of implementing these quality metrics at a community cancer center.


Stroke ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong-Kyun Park ◽  
Yong-Jin Cho ◽  
Keun-Sik Hong ◽  
Seong-Eun Kim ◽  
Jun Yup Kim ◽  
...  

2002 ◽  
Vol 94 (11) ◽  
pp. 835-844 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. L. Malin ◽  
K. L. Kahn ◽  
J. Adams ◽  
L. Kwan ◽  
M. Laouri ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 174-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas W. Blayney

This session explores the approaches taken by various electronic health record vendors to measuring and improving the quality of cancer care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document