1
|
Puente J, Algaba Arrea F, Buisán Rueda Ó, Castellano Gauna D, Durán I, Fernández Ávila JJ, Gómez-Iturriaga A, Parada Blázquez MJ, Pérez Fentes D, Sancho Pardo G, Vallejo Casas JA, Gratal P, Pardo MT, Guillem Porta V. Criteria and indicators to evaluate quality of care in genitourinary tumour boards. Clin Transl Oncol 2024; 26:1639-1646. [PMID: 38341809 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-024-03381-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2023] [Accepted: 12/31/2023] [Indexed: 02/13/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Genitourinary (GU) multidisciplinary tumour boards (GUMTBs) are key components of patient care, as they might lead to changes in treatment plan, improved survival, and increased adherence to guidelines. However, there are no guidelines on how GUMTBs should operate or how to assess their quality of performance. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted to identify criteria and indicators to evaluate quality in GUMTBs. A scientific committee-comprising 12 GU cancer specialists from seven disciplines-proposed a list of criteria and developed indicators, evaluated in two rounds of Delphi method. Appropriateness and utility of indicators were scored using a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as at least two-thirds of Delphi respondents selecting a score sub-category that encompassed the median score of the group. RESULTS Forty-five criteria were selected to evaluate the quality of GUMTBs covering five dimensions: organisation, personnel, protocol and documentation, resources, and interaction with patients. Then, 33 indicators were developed and evaluated in the first round of Delphi, leading to a selection of 26 indicators in two dimensions: function, governance and resources, and GUMTB sessions. In the second round, consensus was reached on the appropriateness of all 26 indicators and on the utility of 24 of them. Index cards for criteria and indicators were developed to be used in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS Criteria and indicators were developed to evaluate the quality of GUMTBs, aiming to serve as a guide to improve quality of care and health outcomes in patients with GU cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Javier Puente
- Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
- Fundación ECO (Excelencia y Calidad de La Oncología), Madrid, Spain.
| | | | - Óscar Buisán Rueda
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Daniel Castellano Gauna
- Fundación ECO (Excelencia y Calidad de La Oncología), Madrid, Spain
- Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario, 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain
| | - Ignacio Durán
- Fundación ECO (Excelencia y Calidad de La Oncología), Madrid, Spain
- Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, IDIVAL, Santander, Spain
| | - Juan José Fernández Ávila
- Servicio de Farmacia Hospitalaria, Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de La Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain
| | - Alfonso Gómez-Iturriaga
- Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Hospital Universitario de Cruces, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Biobizkaia, Vizcaya, Spain
| | | | - Daniel Pérez Fentes
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | - Gemma Sancho Pardo
- Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Hospital de La Santa Creu I Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Paula Gratal
- Fundación ECO (Excelencia y Calidad de La Oncología), Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Vicente Guillem Porta
- Fundación ECO (Excelencia y Calidad de La Oncología), Madrid, Spain
- Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital Vithas 9 de Octubre, Valencia, Spain
| |
Collapse
|