Quality assurance in melanoma care: guideline-based quality indicators for melanoma - implementation, evaluation and update process

Development and Update of Guideline-based Quality Indicators in Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

In 2022, an update of the German lung cancer guideline, first published in 2010 and revised in 2018, was released. This article aims to show the process of updating, developing, and implementing guideline-based quality indicators (QI) into the certification system for lung cancer centers (LCC).

METHODS

A multidisciplinary and interprofessional working group revised the guideline QIs from 2018 using the strong recommendations of the guideline update, a systematic review for QIs, and the results of the implemented QIs from LCC.

RESULTS

For 4 out of 8 indicators from the 2018 guideline, the LCC showed an improved implementation of the requirements in the last 3 years (2018-2020). For 3 indicators, the median of the results was constant at a very high level (≥96% or 100%). Only the "adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy" indicator showed declining values between 2018 and 2020. The target values and plausibility limits were well achieved by LCC. After updating the guideline, one QI from 2018 was not included in the new QI set due to the small denominator population. Based on the new strong recommendations, 8 new QIs were defined. From the QI set of the guideline update, 13 of 15 indicators (7 since 2018 and 6 from 2022 on) were adopted into the certification program.

CONCLUSIONS

The guideline recommendations are implemented by LCC at a high level. The process presented confirms the successful implementation of the so-called quality cycle in oncology. The QIs developed by the German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO) are adopted by the certification program. The implementation of the QI is measured in LCC, evaluated by the German Cancer Society (DKG), and reflected back to the GGPO. The "real world" data have led to the deletion of one QI and show a high implementation of most QIs in LCC.

Medical error analysis in dermatology according to the reports of the North Rhine Medical Association from 2004 to 2018

BACKGROUND

Assessment of complaints addressed to the Expert Committee for Medical Malpractice Claims of the North Rhine Medical Association helps to identify quality assurance problems in dermatology.

METHODS

333 dermatological reports (years 2004-2018) were allocated to three five-year intervals in order to show changes of total number of reports and with regard to indications, types of care, defined diagnosis categories, and therapeutic interventions. Statistical analysis was mainly descriptive (SPSS 27). Representative cases are explained in more detail.

RESULTS

The number of dermatological reports fell from 119 in the first to 92 reports in the last five-year interval, along with a decline in treatment error rates (43 % and 29 %) despite an increasing number of procedures across disciplines. 104 reports dealt with (supposed) diagnostic errors, 156 with physical or pharmacological therapies, and 73 reports with surgery. The latter had a low treatment error rate (29 %).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to the number of dermatological treatments in Germany, patient allegations are raised only rarely indicating greater patient satisfaction and/or a lower risk potential in dermatology. Incorrect dosages or device settings, diagnostic errors, and deficits in obtaining informed consent are relevant sources of error as underlined by the presented case reports.

Development of melanoma clinical quality indicators for the Australian melanoma clinical outcomes registry (MelCOR): A modified Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Clinical quality registries aim to identify significant variations in care and provide anonymised feedback to institutions to improve patient outcomes. Thirty-six Australian organisations with an interest in melanoma, raised funds through three consecutive Melanoma Marches, organised by Melanoma Institute Australia, to create a national Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry (MelCOR). This study aimed to formally develop valid clinical quality indicators for the diagnosis and early management of cutaneous melanoma as an important step in creating the registry.

METHODS

Potential clinical quality indicators were identified by examining the literature, including Australian and international melanoma guidelines, and by consulting with key melanoma and registry opinion leaders. A modified two-round Delphi survey method was used, with participants invited from relevant health professions routinely managing melanoma as well as relevant consumer organisations.

RESULTS

Nineteen participants completed at least one round of the Delphi process. 12 of 13 proposed clinical quality indictors met the validity criteria. The clinical quality indicators included acceptable biopsy method, appropriate excision margins, standardised pathology reporting, indications for sentinel lymph node biopsy, and involvement of multidisciplinary care and referrals.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a multi-stakeholder consensus for important clinical quality indicators that define optimal practice that will now be used in the Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry (MelCOR).