Monitoring quality of care for patients with pancreatic cancer: a modified Delphi consensus

Achievement of benchmark outcomes by a young surgical attendant performing pancreatoduodenectomies

PURPOSE

Pancreatoduodenectomy is a challenging procedure for young general surgeons, and no benchmark outcomes are currently available for young surgeons who have independently performed pancreatoduodenectomies after completing resident training. This study aimed to identify the competency of a young surgeon in performing pancreatoduodenectomies, while ensuring patient safety, from the first case following certification by a General Surgical Board.

METHODS

A retrospective review of data from the university hospital was performed to assess quality outcomes of a young surgical attendant who performed 150 open pancreatoduodenectomies between July 13, 2006, and July 13, 2020. Primary benchmark outcomes were hospital morbidity, mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hospital stay, and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

All benchmark outcomes were achieved by the young surgeon. The 90-day mortality rate was 2.7%, and one patient expired in the hospital (0.7% in-hospital mortality). The overall morbidity rate was 34.7%. Postoperative pancreatic fistula grades B and C were observed in 5.3% and 0% of patients, respectively. The median postoperative hospital stay was 14 days. The 1- and 3-year disease-free survival were 71.3% and 51.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatoduodenectomy requires good standards of care as it is associated with high morbidity and mortality. As only one surgeon could be included in this study, our benchmark outcomes must be compared with those of other institutions.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry and approved by the United Nations (registration identification TCTR20220714002).

A core set of quality performance indicators for HPB procedures: a global consensus for hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, and complex biliary surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery for hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) conditions is performed worldwide. This investigation aimed to develop a set of globally accepted procedural quality performance indicators (QPI) for HPB surgical procedures.

METHODS

A systematic literature review generated a dataset of published QPI for hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, complex biliary surgery and cholecystectomy. Using a modified Delphi process, three rounds were conducted with working groups composed of self-nominating members of the International Hepatopancreaticobiliary Association (IHPBA). The final set of QPI was circulated to the full membership of the IHPBA for review.

RESULTS

Seven "core" indicators were agreed for hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, and complex biliary surgery (availability of specific services on site, a specialised surgical team with at least two certified HPB surgeons, a satisfactory institutional case volume, synoptic pathology reporting, undertaking of unplanned reintervention procedures within 90 days, the incidence of post-procedure bile leak and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications and 90-day post-procedural mortality). Three further procedure specific QPI were proposed for pancreatectomy, six for hepatectomy and complex biliary surgery. Nine procedure-specific QPIs were proposed for cholecystectomy. The final set of proposed indicators were reviewed and approved by 102 IHPBA members from 34 countries.

CONCLUSIONS

This work presents a core set of internationally agreed QPI for HPB surgery.

The Rate of Avoidable Pancreatic Resections at a High-Volume Center: An Internal Quality Control and Critical Review

BACKGROUND

The incidence of benign diseases among pancreatic resections for suspected malignancy still represents a relevant issue in the surgical practice. This study aims to identify the preoperative pitfalls that led to unnecessary surgeries at a single Austrian center over a twenty-year period.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgery for suspected pancreatic/periampullary malignancy between 2000 and 2019 at the Linz Elisabethinen Hospital were included. The rate of "mismatches" between clinical suspicion and histology was considered as primary outcome. All cases that, despite that, fulfilled the indication criteria for surgery were defined as minor mismatches (MIN-M). Conversely, the true avoidable surgeries were identified as major mismatches (MAJ-M).

RESULTS

Among the 320 included patients, 13 (4%) presented with benign lesions at definitive pathology. The rate of MAJ-M was 2.8% (n = 9), and the most frequent causes of misdiagnoses were autoimmune pancreatitis (n = 4) and intrapancreatic accessory spleen (n = 2). In all MAJ-M cases, various mistakes within the preoperative workup were detected: lack of multidisciplinary discussion (n = 7, 77.8%); inappropriate imaging (n = 4, 44.4%); lack of specific blood markers (n = 7, 77.8%). The morbidity and mortality rates for mismatches were 46.7% and 0.

CONCLUSION

All avoidable surgeries were the result of an incomplete pre-operative workup. The adequate identification of the underlying pitfalls could lead to minimize and, potentially, overcome this phenomenon with a concrete optimization of the surgical-care process.

The association between quality care and outcomes for a real-world population of Australian patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

This study: (i) assessed compliance with a consensus set of quality indicators (QIs) in pancreatic cancer (PC); and (ii) evaluated the association between compliance with these QIs and survival.

METHODS

Four years of data were collected for patients diagnosed with PC. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A multivariable analysis tested the relationship between significant patient and hospital characteristics, patient cluster effects within hospitals and survival.

RESULTS

1061 patients were eligible for this study. Significant association with improved survival were: (i) in the potentially resectable group having adjuvant chemotherapy administered following surgery or a reason documented (HR, 0.29; 95 CI, 0.19-0.46); (ii) in the locally advanced group included having chemotherapy ± chemoradiation, or a reason documented for not undergoing treatment (HR, 0.38; 95 CI, 0.25-0.58); and (iii) in the metastatic disease group included having documented performance status at presentation (HR, 0.65; 95 CI, 0.47-0.89), being seen by an oncologist in the absence of treatment (HR, 0.48; 95 CI, 0.31-0.77), and disease management discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting (HR, 0.79; 95 CI, 0.64-0.96).

CONCLUSION

Capture of a concise data set has enabled quality of care to be assessed.

Quality performance indicators for the surgical treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma: a systematic review

Background

A systematic review was undertaken to identify existing quality performance indicators (QPI) for the surgical treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) with the aim of defining a set of QPIs that can be used to assist in the accreditation of institutions for training, allow cross jurisdiction comparison of treatment and outcomes, as well as provide a basis to develop quality improvement programs. These QPI's capture key components of patient care that are fundamental to overall outcome.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted searching MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS with all literature available until the date of 1 August 2021 included. Search terms utilized were ‘Quality of health care OR Quality improvement or Quality control OR Quality indicators’, AND ‘Gastrectomy’ OR ‘Stomach neoplasm’ OR ‘Adenocarcinoma’ OR ‘Gastric resection’ OR ‘Gastric cancer’.

Results

Twelve articles were included in the final analysis. The selected studies included editorials (n = 2), retrospective review of institutional experience (n = 5), cohort studies (n = 2), survey methodology (n = 1), expert guidelines (n = 1) and consensus statement (n = 1). For GC QPIs, process measures included patient discussion at multi‐disciplinary meetings, access to perioperative multimodal diagnostic pathways, and specific surgical metrics (margin negative resections and adequate lymphadenectomy). Outcome measures included the RO resection rate, reoperation, readmission rate, and length of hospital stay.

Conclusions

There is a relative paucity of internationally agreed QPI for the surgical management of gastric adenocarcinoma. The data from this review will form the basis of a project to develop internationally agreed and feasible QPI for gastric cancer resections.

What matters for people with brain cancer? Selecting clinical quality indicators for an Australian Brain Cancer Registry

BACKGROUND

The goal of a clinical quality registry is to deliver immediate gains in survival and quality of life by delivering timely feedback to practitioners, thereby ensuring every patient receives the best existing treatment. We are developing an Australian Brain Cancer Registry (ABCR) to identify, describe, and measure the impact of the variation and gaps in brain cancer care from the time of diagnosis to the end of life.

METHODS

To determine a set of clinical quality indicators (CQIs) for the ABCR, a database and internet search were used to identify relevant guidelines, which were then assessed for quality using the AGREE II Global Rating Scale. Potential indicators were extracted from 21 clinical guidelines, ranked using a modified Delphi process completed in 2 rounds by a panel of experts and other stakeholders, and refined by a multidisciplinary Working Group.

RESULTS

Nineteen key quality reporting domains were chosen, specified by 57 CQIs detailing the specific inclusion and outcome characteristics to be reported.

CONCLUSION

The selected CQIs will form the basis for the ABCR, provide a framework for achievable data collection, and specify best practices for patients and health care providers, with a view to improving care for brain cancer patients. To our knowledge, the systematic and comprehensive approach we have taken is a world first in selecting the reporting specifications for a brain cancer clinical registry.

Quality Indicators in Surgical Palliative Care: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Defining high quality palliative care in seriously ill surgical patients is essential to provide patient-centered surgical care. Quality indicators specifically for seriously ill surgical patients are necessary in order to integrate palliative care into existing surgical quality improvement programs.

OBJECTIVES

To identify existing quality indicators that measure palliative care delivery in seriously ill surgical patients, characterize their development, and assess their methodological quality.

METHODS

A PRISMA-guided systematic review included studies that reported on the development process and characteristics of palliative care quality indicators and guidelines in adult surgical patients. Relevant measures were categorized into the previously defined National Consensus Project domains of palliative care and the Donabedian quality framework, and assessed for methodological quality.

RESULTS

There were 263 unique measures identified from 26 studies, of which 70% were process measures. Indicators addressing Care of the Patient Near the End of Life (31.5%) and Physical Aspects of Care (20.8%) were the most common. Indicators addressing Spiritual (2.6%) and Cultural Aspects of Care (1.2%) were the least common. Methodological quality varied widely across studies. Although most studies defined a purpose for the indicators and used scientific evidence, many studies lacked input from target populations and few had discussed the practical application of indicators.

CONCLUSION

This review was a key step that informed efforts to develop quality indicators for seriously ill surgical patients. Few indicators addressed non-physical aspects of suffering and no indicators were identified addressing palliative surgery. Future attention is needed toward the development and practical application of palliative care quality indicators in surgical patients.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC): Pancreatic Cancer

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Pancreatic cancer is an increasing cause of cancer mortality and has wide variation in treatment and care in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must be carried out only in pancreatic cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

Benchmarking Performance in Pancreatic Surgery: a Systematic Review of Published Quality Metrics

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is performed in relatively few centres. There are validated quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery, although it remains unclear how published benchmarks compare with each other. This study aimed to systematically review published literature to summarise metrics that define quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery.

METHOD

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was undertaken until June 2019. Articles that developed or validated published quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery were included. Benchmarks were classified into three domains using the Donabedian framework, and their quality assessed using the AIRE Instrument.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies included 55 quality metrics, of which 8 developed new metrics, and 11 studies validated previously published metrics. The methodology of metric development was either expert opinion-driven or data-driven. All metrics demonstrated moderate quality scores. There was partial agreement in some metrics (e.g. < 10 h total operative duration), but lack of consensus for most others (e.g. lymph node yield ≥ 10, ≥ 12, ≥ 15, ≥ 16). No metrics related to patient reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Published quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery predominantly arise from eight studies, with heterogeneity in how the metrics were developed. There was not consensus for all metrics. Metrics need to be reviewed as new data emerge, technologies develop and opinions change.

Quality performance indicators for hepato-pancreatico-biliary procedures: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

This systematic review was undertaken to define and summarize existing, proposed quality performance indicators (QPI) for hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) procedures.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified studies reporting on quality indicators for cholecystectomy, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy and complex biliary surgical procedures. The databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and SCOPUS, with all literature available until the search date of 1 May 2020 included. The reference lists of all included papers, as well as related review articles, were manually searched to identify further relevant studies.

RESULTS

Forty-five publications report quality indicators for pancreatectomy (n = 22), hepatectomy (n = 7), HPB resections in general (n = 12), and cholecystectomy (n = 6). No publications proposed QPI for complex biliary surgery. The 45 papers used national audit (n = 18), consensus methodology (n = 5), state-wide audit (n = 3), unit audit (n = 9), review methodology (n = 9), and survey methodology (n = 1). Sixty-one QPI were reported for pancreatectomy, 22 reported for hepatectomy, and 14 reported for HPB resections in general, in domains of infrastructure, provider, and documentation. Fourteen infrastructure and provider-based QPI were reported for cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

There are few internationally agreed QPI for HPB procedures that allow global comparison of provider performance and that set aspirational goals for patient care and experience.

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of protocol-based imaging in pancreatic cancer: A qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework

BACKGROUND

Accurate pre-operative imaging plays a vital role in patient selection for surgery and in allocating stage-appropriate therapies to patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (PC). This study aims to: (1) understand the current diagnosis and staging practices for PC; and (2) explore the factors (barriers and enablers) that influence the use of a pancreatic protocol computed tomography (PPCT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to confirm diagnosis and/or accurately stage PC.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with radiologists, surgeons, gastroenterologists, medical and radiation oncologists from the states of New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria, Australia. Interviews were conducted either in person or via video conferencing. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, de-identified and data were thematically coded according to the 12 domains explored within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Common belief statements were generated to compare the variation between participant responses.

FINDINGS

In total, 21 clinicians (5 radiologists, 10 surgeons, 2 gastroenterologists, 4 medical and radiation oncologists) were interviewed over a four-month-period. Belief statements relevant to the TDF domains were generated. Across the 11 relevant domains, 20 themes and 30 specific beliefs were identified. All TDF domains, with the exception of social influences were identified by participants as relevant to protocol-based imaging using either a PPCT or MRI, with the domains of knowledge, skills and environmental context and resources being offered by most participants as being relevant in influencing their decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

To maximise outcomes and personalise therapy it is imperative that diagnosis and staging investigations using the most appropriate imaging modalities are conducted in a timely, efficient and effective manner. The results provide an understanding of specialists' opinion and behaviour in relation to a PPCT or MRI and should be used to inform the design of future interventions to improve compliance with this practice.

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of multidisciplinary team meetings: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework

Background

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommend discussion by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) to review and plan the management of patients for a variety of cancers. However, not all patients diagnosed with cancer are presented at an MDT.

Objectives

(1) To identify the factors (barriers and enablers) influencing presentation of all patients to, and the perceived value of, MDT meetings in the management of patients with pancreatic cancer and; (2) to identify potential interventions that could overcome modifiable barriers and enhance enablers using the theoretical domains framework (TDF).

Methods

Semistructured interviews were conducted with radiologists, surgeons, medical and radiation oncologists, gastroenterologists, palliative care specialists and nurse specialists based in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia. Interviews were conducted either in person or via videoconferencing. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, deidentified and data were thematically coded according to the 12 domains explored within the TDF. Common belief statements were generated to compare the variation between participant responses.

Results

In total, 29 specialists were interviewed over a 4-month period. Twenty-two themes and 40 belief statements relevant to all the TDF domains were generated. Key enablers influencing MDT practices included a strong organisational focus (social/professional role and identity), beliefs about the benefits of an MDT discussion (beliefs about consequences), the use of technology, for example, videoconferencing (environmental context and resources), the motivation to provide good quality care (motivation and goals) and collegiality (social influences). Barriers included: absence of palliative care representation (skills), the number of MDT meetings (environmental context and resources), the cumulative cost of staff time (beliefs about consequences), the lack of capacity to discuss all patients within the allotted time (beliefs about capabilities) and reduced confidence to participate in discussions (social influences).

Conclusions

The internal and external organisational structures surrounding MDT meetings ideally need to be strengthened with the development of agreed evidence-based protocols and referral pathways, a focus on resource allocation and capabilities, and a culture that fosters widespread collaboration for all stages of pancreatic cancer.

The Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry (UGICR): a clinical quality registry to monitor and improve care in upper gastrointestinal cancers

PURPOSE

The Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry (UGICR) was developed to monitor and improve the quality of care provided to patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers in Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

It supports four cancer modules: pancreatic, oesophagogastric, biliary and primary liver cancer. The pancreatic cancer (PC) module was the first module to be implemented, with others being established in a staged approach. Individuals are recruited to the registry if they are aged 18 years or older, have received care for their cancer at a participating public/private hospital or private clinic in Australia and do not opt out of participation.

FINDINGS TO DATE

The UGICR is governed by a multidisciplinary steering committee that provides clinical governance and oversees clinical working parties. The role of the working parties is to develop quality indicators based on best practice for each registry module, develop the minimum datasets and provide guidance in analysing and reporting of results. Data are captured from existing data sources (population-based cancer incidence registries, pathology databases and hospital-coded data) and manually from clinical records. Data collectors directly enter information into a secure web-based Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data collection platform. The PC module began with a pilot phase, and subsequently, we used a formal modified Delphi consensus process to establish a core set of quality indicators for PC. The second module developed was the oesophagogastric cancer (OGC) module. Results of the 1 year pilot phases for PC and OGC modules are included in this cohort profile.

FUTURE PLANS

The UGICR will provide regular reports of risk-adjusted, benchmarked performance on a range of quality indicators that will highlight variations in care and clinical outcomes at a health service level. The registry has also been developed with the view to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which will further add to our understanding of the care of patients with these cancers.

Consensus-Derived Quality Performance Indicators for Neuroendocrine Tumour Care

Quality performance indicators (QPIs) are used to monitor the delivery of cancer care. Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a family of individually uncommon cancers that derive from neuroendocrine cells or their precursors, and can occur in most organs. There are currently no QPIs available for NETs and their heterogeneity makes QPI development difficult. CommNETs is a collaboration between NET clinicians, researchers and advocates in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We created QPIs for NETs using a three-step consensus process. First, a multidisciplinary team used the nominal group technique to create candidates (n = 133) which were then curated into appropriateness statements (62 statements, 44 sub-statements). A two-stage modified RAND/UCLA Delphi consensus process was conducted: an online survey rated the statement appropriateness then the top-ranked statements (n = 20) were assessed in a face-to-face meeting. Finally, 10 QPIs met consensus criteria; documentation of primary site, proliferative index, differentiation, tumour board review, use of a structured pathology report, presence of distant metastasis, 5- and 10-year disease-free and overall survival. These NET QPIs will be trialed as a method to monitor and improve care for people with NETs and to facilitate international comparison.

Update on current pancreatic treatments: from molecular pathways to treatment

Pancreatic cancer is still diagnosed at a late stage although we have novel diagnostic tools. Pancreatic cancer chemotherapy treatment resistance is observed and therefore novel treatments are in need. Anti-cancer stem cell therapy, combination of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with immunotherapy, proteins/enzymes and gene therapy are currently under evaluation. Targeted treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors is also administered and novel inhibitors are also under evaluation. In the current review we present recent data from our search within the year 2018.