Quality indicators of clinical cancer care (QC3) in colorectal cancer

Quality of Life of Colorectal Cancer Survivors: Mapping the Key Indicators by Expert Consensus and Measures for Their Assessment

Quality of life (QoL) assessments are integral to cancer care, yet their effectiveness in providing essential information for supporting survivors varies. This study aimed to elucidate key indicators of QoL among colorectal cancer survivors from the perspective of healthcare professionals, and to evaluate existing QoL questionnaires in relation to these indicators. Two studies were conducted: a Delphi study to identify key QoL indicators and a scoping review of questionnaires suitable for colorectal cancer survivors. Fifty-four healthcare professionals participated in the Delphi study's first round, with 25 in the second. The study identified two primary QoL domains (physical and psychological) and 17 subdomains deemed most critical. Additionally, a review of 12 questionnaires revealed two instruments assessing the most important general domains. The findings underscored a misalignment between existing assessment tools and healthcare professionals' clinical priorities in working with colorectal cancer survivors. To enhance support for survivors' QoL, efforts are needed to develop instruments that better align with the demands of routine QoL assessment in clinical practice.

Measurement that matters: A systematic review and modified Delphi of multidisciplinary colorectal cancer quality indicators

AIM

To develop a priority set of quality indicators (QIs) for use by colorectal cancer (CRC) multidisciplinary teams (MDTs).

METHODS

The review search strategy was executed in four databases from 2009-August 2019. Two reviewers screened abstracts/manuscripts. Candidate QIs and characteristics were extracted using a tailored abstraction tool and assessed for scientific soundness. To prioritize candidate indicators, a modified Delphi consensus process was conducted. Consensus was sought over two rounds; (1) multidisciplinary expert workshops to identify relevance to Australian CRC MDTs, and (2) an online survey to prioritize QIs by clinical importance.

RESULTS

A total of 93 unique QIs were extracted from 118 studies and categorized into domains of care within the CRC patient pathway. Approximately half the QIs involved more than one discipline (52.7%). One-third of QIs related to surgery of primary CRC (31.2%). QIs on supportive care (6%) and neoadjuvant therapy (6%) were limited. In the Delphi Round 1, workshop participants (n = 12) assessed 93 QIs and produced consensus on retaining 49 QIs including six new QIs. In Round 2, survey participants (n = 44) rated QIs and prioritized a final 26 QIs across all domains of care and disciplines with a concordance level > 80%. Participants represented all MDT disciplines, predominantly surgical (32%), radiation (23%) and medical (20%) oncology, and nursing (18%), across six Australian states, with an even spread of experience level.

CONCLUSION

This study identified a large number of existing CRC QIs and prioritized the most clinically relevant QIs for use by Australian MDTs to measure and monitor their performance.

Identifying a common data dictionary across colorectal cancer outcome registries: A mapping exercise to identify opportunities for data dictionary harmonisation

IMPORTANCE

The development of colorectal cancer outcome registries internationally has been organic, with differing datasets, data definitions and infrastructure across registries which has limited data pooling and international comparison. Currently there is no comprehensive data dictionary identified as a standard. This study is part of an international collaboration that aims to identify areas of data capture and usage which may be optimised to improve understanding of colorectal cancer outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare and identify commonalities and areas of difference across major colorectal cancer registries. We sought to establish datasets comprising of mutually collected common fields, and a combined comprehensive dataset of all collected fields across major registries to aid in establishing a future colorectal cancer registry database standard.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This mixed qualitative and quantitative study compared data dictionaries from three major colorectal cancer outcome registries: Bowel Cancer Outcomes Registry (BCOR) (Australia and New Zealand), National Bowel Cancer Audit (NBOCA) (United Kingdom) and Dutch ColoRectal Audit (DCRA) (Netherlands). Registries were compared and analysed thematically, and a common dataset and combined comprehensive dataset were developed. These generated datasets were compared to data dictionaries from Sweden (SCRCR), Denmark (DCCG), Argentina (BNCCR-A) and the USA (NAACCR and ACS NSQIP). Fields were assessed against prominent quality indicator metrics from the literature and current case-use.

RESULTS

We developed a combined comprehensive dataset of 225 fields under seven domains: demographic, pre-operative, operative, post-operative, pathology, neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and follow up/recurrence. A common dataset was developed comprising 38 overlapping fields, showing a low degree of mutually collected data, especially in preoperative, post operative and adjuvant therapy domains. The BNCCR-A, SCRCR and DCCG databases all contained a high percentage of common dataset fields. Fields were poorly comparable when viewed form current quality indicator metrics.

CONCLUSION

This study mapped data dictionaries of prominent colorectal cancer registries and highlighted areas of commonality and difference The developed common field dataset provides a foundation for registries to benchmark themselves and work towards harmonisation of data dictionaries. This has the potential to enable meaningful large-scale international outcomes research.

Quality of Care for Prostate Cancer in Kashmir, India: A Real-World Study

Purpose Despite the importance of quality care for patients with prostate cancer, significant gaps exist in healthcare delivery, including diagnosis and treatment. Our objective was to assess the quality of care (QoC) using retrospective data from prostate care patients in our center. Methods We performed a retrospective study of prostate cancer patients registered at a dedicated cancer care center in the Kashmir region from 2012 to 2020. A set of 15 quality indicators representing crucial facets of diagnosis, pathology, and treatment was identified from a comprehensive list developed and validated by other researchers. Results The final analysis of all indicators was conducted on 46 patients with a median age of 70 years (52-92 years). In the majority of patients, the diagnosis (89.1%) was made through a prostatic biopsy, while only five patients were diagnosed solely based on the prostate-specific antigen. Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) or transurethral resection (TURP)-guided biopsy was documented in 84.8% of patients, with Gleason grading documented in 87.5% of patients. However, the number of positive cores was mentioned for only 25.7% of patients. Radical prostatectomy was the primary treatment for most patients with localized prostate cancer (58.3%). The majority of patients with metastatic prostate cancer were treated with orchidectomy (55%), owing to easy access and the lower cost of surgical castration. Conclusion The study demonstrated a lack of compliance with many QoC indicators at the diagnostic and therapeutic levels. However, large-scale, population-based studies are needed to establish the compliance of prostate cancer QoC in Kashmir. The quality indicator assessment can guide the necessary actions required to improve QoC for prostate cancer patients.

A scoping review on population-centered indicators for cancer care continuum

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to develop prioritized cancer indicators and measure the population-based monitoring of the entire life cycle of cancer care, guiding the improvement of care delivery systems.

Methods

Scoping review was performed based on the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology. Electronic databases were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Ovid Medline, RISS, KISS, and KoreaMed. The searches were limited to articles published in English between 2010 and 2020. No restrictions were applied regarding the publication status or country of origin, and all study designs were included. Gray literature was used to broaden the search's scope, identify new recommendations, need to be in connect with subject experts, and explore pertinent websites. The process and selected indicators were analyzed based on their frequency distribution and percentage.

Results

The literature search yielded 6,202 works. In addition, national and international cancer guidelines were obtained from official database reports. A total of 35 articles and 20 reports regarding cancer indicators were finally selected for data synthesis. Based on them, 254 core sets of cancer indicators were identified. The selected indicators were classified into six domains based on the continuum of cancer care and survivor's life cycle, namely, primary prevention (61, 24.0%), secondary prevention (46, 18.1%), treatment (85, 33.5%), quality of care (33, 13.0%), survivor management (33, 13.0%), and end-of-life care (14, 5.5%).

Conclusion

There is a growing interest in developing specific areas of cancer care. Cancer indicators can help organizations, care providers, and patients strive for optimal care outcomes. The identified indicators could guide future innovations by identifying weaknesses in cancer prevention and management.

Selecting Performance Indicators and Targets in Health Care: An International Scoping Review and Standardized Process Framework

Objective

Health care organizations monitor hundreds of performance indicators. It is unclear what processes and criteria organizations use to identify the indicators they use, who is involved in these processes, how performance targets are set, and what the impacts of these processes are. The purpose of this study is to synthesize international approaches to indicator selection and develop a standardized process framework.

Methods

Using the PubMed and Web of Science search engines, a scoping review of peer reviewed and grey literature following PRISMA-ScR guidelines was conducted to identify documents describing indicator selection processes used by health systems. English-language papers from 11 countries published from 2010 to 2020 were included. Papers were thematically analyzed to develop a standardized process framework.

Results

The review included 33 peer-reviewed papers and 11 grey-literature documents. While there are common practices used in health care to select indicators, no single standardized process framework for indicator selection exists. Arbitrary or incomplete indicator selection processes risk over-measurement, lack of alignment with strategic and operational goals, lack of support by end-users, and paralyzed decision-making ability. By consolidating international practices, we developed the 5-P indicator selection process framework to mitigate process risks and support high-quality indicator selection processes.

Conclusion

The 5-P indicator selection process framework consists of five domains and 17 elements, and offers health care agencies a practical structure they can use to design indicator selection processes. The framework also provides researchers with a basis by which the implementation of these processes may be evaluated.

Quality Indicators and Outcomes in a Prospective Cohort of Colorectal Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Some quality indicators of proper health care in patients with colorectal cancer have been established.

AIMS

Our goal was to evaluate the relationship between performing of certain procedures or treatments, included as quality indicators, and some outcomes of indicators in the follow-up of colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer that underwent surgery and were followed at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years. CT scanning, colonoscopy, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy were evaluated in relation to various clinical outcomes and PROM changes over 5 years. Multivariable generalized linear mixed models were used to evaluate their effect on mortality, complications, recurrence, and PROM changes (HAD, EQ-5D, EORTC-Q30) at the next follow-up.

RESULTS

CT scanning or colonoscopy was related to a decrease in the risk of dying, while chemotherapy at a specified moment was related to an increased risk. In the case of recurrence, CT scanning and chemotherapy showed statistically increased the risk, while all the procedures and treatments influenced complications. Regarding PROM scales, CT scanning, colonoscopy, and radiotherapy showed statistically significant results with respect to an increase in anxiety and decrease in quality of life measured by the EORTC. However, undergoing radiotherapy at a specified moment increased depression levels, and overall, receiving radiotherapy decreased the quality of life of the patients, as measured by the EuroQol-5d.

CONCLUSIONS

After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and severity of the disease, performing certain quality indicators of proper health care in patients with colorectal cancer was related to less mortality but higher adverse outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02488161.

Quality indicator selection for the Canadian Partnership against Cancer rectal cancer project: A modified Delphi study

AIM

It is well established that (i) magnetic resonance imaging, (ii) multidisciplinary cancer conference (MCCs), (iii) preoperative radiotherapy, (iv) total mesorectal excision surgery and (v) pathological assessment as described by Quirke are key processes necessary for high quality, rectal cancer care. The objective was to select a set of multidisciplinary quality indicators to measure the uptake of these clinical processes in clinical practice.

METHOD

A multidisciplinary panel was convened and a modified two-phase Delphi method was used to select a set of quality indicators. Phase 1 included a literature review with written feedback from the panel. Phase 2 included an in-person workshop with anonymous voting. The selection criteria for the indicators were strength of evidence, ease of capture and usability. Indicators for which ≥90% of the panel members voted 'to keep' were selected as the final set of indicators.

RESULTS

During phase 1, 68 potential indicators were generated from the literature and an additional four indicators were recommended by the panel. During phase 2, these 72 indicators were discussed; 48 indicators met the 90% inclusion threshold and included eight pathology, five radiology, 11 surgical, six radiation oncology and 18 MCC indicators.

CONCLUSION

A modified Delphi method was used to select 48 multidisciplinary quality indicators to specifically measure the uptake of key processes necessary for high quality care of patients with rectal cancer. These quality indicators will be used in future work to identify and address gaps in care in the uptake of these clinical processes.

Methods for development of structure, process and outcome indicators for prioritized spinal cord injury rehabilitation Domains: SCI-High Project

Background: High-quality rehabilitation care following spinal cord injury or disease (SCI/D) is critical for optimizing neurorecovery and long-term health outcomes. This manuscript describes the methods used for developing, refining, and implementing a framework of structure, process, and outcome indicators that reflect high-quality rehabilitation among adults with SCI/D in Canada. Methods: This quality improvement initiative was comprised of the following processes: (1) prioritization of care Domains by key stakeholders (scientists, clinicians, therapists, patients and stakeholder organizations); (2) assembly of 11 Domain-specific Working Groups including 69 content experts; (3) conduct of literature searches, guideline and best practice reviews, and outcome synthesis by the Project Team; (4) refinement of Domain aim and construct definitions; (5) conduct of cause and effect analysis using Driver diagrams; (6) selection and development of structure, process and outcome indicators; (7) piloting and feasibility analysis of indicators and associated evaluation tools; and, (8) dissemination of the proposed indicators. Result: The Project Team established aims, constructs and related structure, process, and outcome indicators to facilitate uniform measurement and benchmarking across 11 Domains of rehabilitation, at admission and for 18 months thereafter, among adult Canadians by 2020. Conclusion: These processes led to the selection of a feasible set of indicators that once implemented should ensure that adults with SCI/D receive timely, safe, and effective rehabilitation services. These indicators can be used to assess health system performance, monitor the quality of care within and across rehabilitation settings, and evaluate the rehabilitation outcomes of the population to ultimately enhance healthcare quality and equity.

Quality indicators for responsible use of medicines: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

All healthcare systems require valid ways to evaluate service delivery. The objective of this study was to identify existing content validated quality indicators (QIs) for responsible use of medicines (RUM) and classify them using multiple frameworks to identify gaps in current quality measurements.

DESIGN

Systematic review without meta-analysis.

SETTING

All care settings.

SEARCH STRATEGY

CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, International Pharmaceutical Abstract, MEDLINE, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2018. An internet search was also conducted. Articles were included if they described medication-related QIs developed using consensus methods. Government agency websites listing QIs for RUM were also included.

ANALYSIS

Several multidimensional frameworks were selected to assess the scope of QI coverage. These included Donabedian's framework (structure, process and outcome), the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system and a validated classification for causes of drug-related problems (c-DRPs; drug selection, drug form, dose selection, treatment duration, drug use process, logistics, monitoring, adverse drug reactions and others).

RESULTS

2431 content validated QIs were identified from 131 articles and 5 websites. Using Donabedian's framework, the majority of QIs were process indicators. Based on the ATC code, the largest number of QIs pertained to medicines for nervous system (ATC code: N), followed by anti-infectives for systemic use (J) and cardiovascular system (C). The most common c-DRPs pertained to 'drug selection', followed by 'monitoring' and 'drug use process'.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was the first systematic review classifying QIs for RUM using multiple frameworks. The list of the identified QIs can be used as a database for evaluating the achievement of RUM. Although many QIs were identified, this approach allowed for the identification of gaps in quality measurement of RUM. In order to more effectively evaluate the extent to which RUM has been achieved, further development of QIs may be required.

Quality indicators of clinical cancer care for prostate cancer: a population-based study in southern Switzerland

Background

Quality of cancer care (QoCC) has become an important item for providers, regulators and purchasers of care worldwide. Aim of this study is to present the results of some evidence-based quality indicators (QI) for prostate cancer (PC) at the population-based level and to compare the outcomes with data available in the literature.

Methods

The study included all PC diagnosed on a three years period analysis (01.01.2011–31.12.2013) in the population of Canton Ticino (Southern Switzerland) extracted from the Ticino Cancer Registry database. 13 QI, approved through the validated Delphi methodology, were calculated using the “available case” approach: 2 for diagnosis, 4 for pathology, 6 for treatment and 1 for outcome. The selection of the computed QI was based on the availability of medical documentation. QI are presented as proportion (%) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.

Results

700 PC were detected during the three-year period 2011–2013: 78.3% of them were diagnosed through a prostatic biopsy and for 72.5% 8 or more biopsy cores were taken. 46.5% of the low risk PC patients underwent active surveillance, while 69.2% of high risk PC underwent a radical treatment (radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy or brachytherapy) and 73.5% of patients with metastatic PC were treated with hormonal therapy. The overall 30-day postoperative mortality was 0.5%.

Conclusions

Results emerging from this study on the QoCC for PC in Canton Ticino are encouraging: the choice of treatment modalities seems to respect the international guidelines and our results are comparable to the scarce number of available international studies. Additional national and international standardisation of the QI and further QI population-based studies are needed in order to get a real picture of the PC diagnostic-therapeutic process progress through the definition of thresholds of minimal standard of care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4604-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A national patient and public colorectal research agenda: integration of consumer perspectives in bowel disease through early consultation

AIM

There is a recognized need to include the views of patients and the public in prioritizing health research. This study aimed: (i) to explore patients' views on colorectal research; and (ii) to prioritize research topics with patients and the public.

METHOD

In phase 1, 12 charitable organizations and patient groups with an interest in bowel disease were invited to attend a consultation exercise. Participants were briefed on 25 colorectal research topics prioritized by members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. Focus groups were conducted and discussions were recorded with field notes. Analysis was conducted using principles of thematic analysis. In phase 2, a free public consultation was undertaken. Participants were recruited from newspaper advertisements, were briefed on the same research topics and were asked to rate the importance of each on a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were used to rank the topics. Univariable linear regression compared recorded demographic details with mean topic scores.

RESULTS

Focus groups were attended by 12 patients who highlighted the importance of patient-centred information for trial recruitment and when selecting outcome measures. Some 360 people attended the public consultation, of whom 277 (77%) were recruited. Participants rated 'What is the best way to treat early cancer in the back passage?' highest, with 227 (85%) scoring it 4 or 5. There was no correlation between participant demographics and mean topic scores.

CONCLUSION

The present study prioritized a colorectal research agenda with the input of patients and the public. Further research is required to translate this agenda into real improvements in patient care.

Use of a modified Delphi approach to develop research priorities for the association of coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland

AIM

The modified Delphi approach is an established method for reaching a consensus opinion among a group of experts in a particular field. We have used this technique to survey the entire membership of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) to reach a consensus on prioritizing clinical research questions in colorectal disease.

METHOD

Three rounds of surveys were conducted using a web-based tool. In the first, the ACPGBI membership was invited to submit research questions. In Rounds 2 and 3 they were asked to score questions on priority. A steering group analysed the results of each round to identify those questions ranked as being of highest priority.

RESULTS

Five hundred and two questions were submitted in Round 1. Following two rounds of voting and analysis, a list of 25 priority questions was produced, including 15 cancer-related and 10 noncancer-related questions.

CONCLUSION

It is anticipated that these results will: (i) set the research agenda over the next few years for the study of colorectal disease in the United Kingdom, (ii) promote development and (iii) define funding of new research and prioritize areas of unmet clinical need where the potential clinical impact is greatest.