Quality of care and short and long‐term outcomes of oropharyngeal cancer care in the elderly

Treatment of elderly patients with head and neck cancer in an aging society: Focus on geriatric assessment and surgical treatment

Previous studies of the treatment of elderly head and neck cancer (HNC) patients were very limited and sometimes controversial. Although conclusions differ across various reports, it is often concluded that advanced chronological age does not directly affect prognosis, but that comorbidities and declines in physical and cognitive functions promote the occurrence of adverse events, especially with surgical treatment. Geriatric assessment (GA) and its screening tools are keys to help us understand overall health status and problems, predict life expectancy and treatment tolerance, and to influence treatment choices and interventions to improve treatment compliance. In addition, personal beliefs and values play a large role in determining policies for HNC treatment for elderly patients, and a multidisciplinary approach is important to support this. In this review, past research on HNC in older adults is presented, and the current evidence is explained, focusing on the management of elderly HNC patients, with an emphasis on the existing reports on each treatment stage and modality, especially the surgical procedures.

Management of elderly patients with head and neck cancer

There are no established guidelines for managing older patients with head and neck cancer. Most clinical trials that define current standard therapy included few elderly patients. On the other hand, there is great variability in patients' comorbidities, physical functions, cognitive function, familial and financial background and values. The key point appears to be appropriate geriatric assessment, clarifying the patients' outcomes and a multidisciplinary team approach, including the treatment decision-making policy. Although these processes should be scientific in nature, the evidence for the treatment of elderly head and neck patients is very limited. This review summarizes the evidence available regarding the management of geriatric assessment, each treatment modality and the multidisciplinary team approach for older patients with head and neck cancers.

Quality Indicators for the Diagnosis and Management of Menière's Disease

OBJECTIVE

Menière's disease (MD) is a clinical disorder that often provides challenges in diagnosis and management. High-quality evidence to guide care providers is sparse, which can result in significant practice variations. Quality indicators (QIs) are one method that can be used to standardize and measure accepted care practices to improve healthcare quality and patient outcomes. Here, we developed practical, high-yield QIs that serve to measure and inform the quality of care provided to patients with MD.

STUDY DESIGN

Modified RAND Corporation University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness methodology for QI development.

SETTING

Multicenter nine-member expert panel.

PATIENTS

NA.

INTERVENTIONS

NA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Final QIs deemed appropriate measures of quality care with agreement by the expert panel.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven candidate indicators were identified after literature review. After the first round of evaluations, the panel agreed on three candidate indicators as appropriate QIs. A subsequent expert panel meeting provided a platform to discuss disagreements. Two agreed-upon QIs were revised during this discussion before final evaluations. The expert panel ultimately agreed upon five QIs as appropriate measures of high-quality care after completing final evaluations and reviewing updated literature. The five quality indicators measure audiometric documentation, minimization of electrocochleography, use of intratympanic dexamethasone, use of intratympanic gentamycin, and rate of labyrinthectomy/vestibular neurectomy in refractory MD patient.

CONCLUSIONS

This study proposes five QIs that cover key aspects of care for MD, such as accurate diagnosis and management options including initial destructive therapies. These QIs can serve multiple purposes, the most important of which is to galvanize quality improvement initiatives.

Quality Indicators for the Diagnosis and Management of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVE

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is an ideal entity for quality indicator (QI) development, providing treatment challenges resulting in variable or substandard care. The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery recently updated their SSNHL guidelines. With SSNHL demonstrating a large burden of illness, this study sought to leverage the updated guidelines and develop QIs that support quality improvement initiatives at an individual, institutional, and systems level.

METHODS

Candidate indicators (CIs) were extracted from high-quality SSNHL guidelines that were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Each CI and its supporting evidence were summarized and reviewed by a nine-member expert panel based on validity, reliability, and feasibility of measurement. Final QIs were selected from CIs using the modified RAND Corporation-University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness methodology.

RESULTS

Fifteen CIs were identified after literature review. After the first round of evaluations, the panel agreed on 11 candidate indicators as appropriate QIs with 2 additional CIs suggested for consideration. An expert panel meeting provided a platform to discuss areas of disagreement before final evaluations. The expert panel subsequently agreed upon 11 final QIs as appropriate measures of high-quality care for SSNHL.

CONCLUSION

The 11 proposed QIs from this study are supported by evidence and expert consensus, facilitating measurement across a wide breadth of quality domains. With the recently updated SSNHL guidelines, and a greater focus on quality improvement opportunities, these QIs may be used by healthcare providers for targeted quality improvement initiatives.

Value and Quality of Care in Head and Neck Oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The concept of value-based health care (VBHC) was articulated more than a decade ago. However, its clinical implementation remains an on-going process and a particularly demanding one for the domain of head and neck cancer (HNC). These cancers often present with fast growing tumors in functionally and cosmetically sensitive sites and afflict patients with differing circumstances and comorbidity. Moreover, the various treatment modalities and protocols have different effects on functional outcomes. Hence, the interpretation of what constitutes VBHC in head and neck oncology remains challenging.

RECENT FINDINGS

This monograph reviews developments in specific aspects of VBHC for HNC patients, including establishment of registries and quality indices (such as infrastructure, process, and outcome indicators). It emphasizes the importance of the multidisciplinary team, "time to treatment intervals," and adherence to guidelines. The discussion addresses major indicators including survival, quality of life and functional outcomes, and adverse events. Also, strengths and weaknesses of nomograms, prognostic and decision models, and variation of care warrant attention. Health care professionals, together with patients, must properly define quality and relevant outcomes, both for the individual patient as well as the HNC population. It is essential to capture and organize the relevant data so that they can be analyzed and the results used to improve both outcomes and value.