'Care for Outcomes': systematic development of a set of outcome indicators to improve patient-relevant outcomes for patients with lung cancer

International standards of care in thoracic oncology: A narrative review of clinical quality indicators

Unwarranted variations in lung cancer care are widely described. Clinical Quality Indicators (CQIs) enable the systematic identification and alleviation of variations in care and other evidence-practice gaps. The aim of this review was to describe and evaluate lung cancer CQIs utilised internationally, in order to provide a substrate for the development of Australasian lung cancer CQIs and future quality improvement initiatives. A literature search was performed to identify relevant publications; references were excluded if they did not explicitly define original lung cancer-specific quality indicators, or were review or opinion articles. Ultimately, 48 publications containing 661 individual CQIs were evaluated. Although almost all references were published in the last decade, CQIs did not always reflect contemporary standards of care. For example, there were just sixteen CQIs regarding biomarker profiling, eleven CQIs regarding multidisciplinary team review, and three clinical trial enrolment CQIs. Of 307 lung cancer treatment CQIs, almost half (137) pertain to surgical resection; a treatment option available to a minority of lung cancer patients. Consumer engagement during indicator development was uncommon. In conclusion, whilst CQIs are widely measured and reported, they are not always consistent with evidence-based practice, nor do they reliably support the holistic evaluation of the lung cancer care continuum. Moving forward, Australia and New Zealand must adopt a unified, evidence-based and patient-centred approach to drive meaningful improvements in practice.

Prognostic value of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in adults with non-small cell Lung Cancer: a scoping review

Background

There is growing interest in the collection and use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to support clinical decision making in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, an overview of research into the prognostic value of PROMs is currently lacking.

Aim

To explore to what extent, how, and how robustly the value of PROMs for prognostic prediction has been investigated in adults diagnosed with NSCLC.

Methods

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus and Scopus for English-language articles published from 2011 to 2021 that report prognostic factor study, prognostic model development or validation study. Example data charting forms from the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group guided our data charting on study characteristics, PROMs as predictors, predicted outcomes, and statistical methods. Two reviewers independently charted the data and critically appraised studies using the QUality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool for prognostic factor studies, and the risk of bias assessment section of the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic model studies.

Results

Our search yielded 2,769 unique titles of which we included 31 studies, reporting the results of 33 unique analyses and models. Out of the 17 PROMs used for prediction, the EORTC QLQ-C30 was most frequently used (16/33); 12/33 analyses used PROM subdomain scores instead of the overall scores. PROMs data was mostly collected at baseline (24/33) and predominantly used to predict survival (32/33) but seldom other clinical outcomes (1/33). Almost all prognostic factor studies (26/27) had moderate to high risk of bias and all four prognostic model development studies had high risk of bias.

Conclusion

There is an emerging body of research into the value of PROMs as a prognostic factor for survival in people with NSCLC but the methodological quality of this research is poor with significant bias. This warrants more robust studies into the prognostic value of PROMs, in particular for predicting outcomes other than survival. This will enable further development of PROM-based prediction models to support clinical decision making in NSCLC.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-10151-z.

Quality measurement for cardiovascular diseases and cancer in hospital value-based healthcare: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

This systematic literature review identifies hospital value-based healthcare quality measures, measurement practices, and tools, as well as potential strategies for improving cardiovascular diseases and cancer care.

METHODS

A systematic search was carried out in the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and MEDLINE (OvidSP) databases. We included studies on quality measures in hospital value-based healthcare for cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, conducted a full-text review of potentially relevant articles, assessed the quality of included studies, and extracted data thematically. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and four validated tools were used for methodological quality assessment.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2860 publications. After screening the titles and abstracts, 60 articles were retrieved for full-text review. A total of 37 studies met our inclusion criteria. We found that standardized outcome sets with patient involvement were developed for some cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Despite the heterogeneity in outcome measures, there was consensus to include clinical outcomes on survival rate and disease control, disutility of care, and patient-reported outcome measures such as long-term quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Hospitals that developed value-based healthcare or are planning to do so can choose whether they prefer to implement the standardized outcomes step-by-step, collect additional measures, or develop their own set of measures. However, they need to ensure that their performance can be consistently compared to that of their peers and that they measure what prioritizes and maximizes value for their patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID: CRD42021229763 .