Degree of variability in performance on breast cancer quality indicators: findings from the Florida initiative for quality cancer care

Quality indicators in surgical oncology: systematic review of measures used to compare quality across hospitals

BACKGROUND

Measurement and reporting of quality indicators at the hospital level has been shown to improve outcomes and support patient choice. Although there are many studies validating individual quality indicators, there has been no systematic approach to understanding what quality indicators exist for surgical oncology and no standardization for their use. The aim of this study was to review quality indicators used to assess variation in quality in surgical oncology care across hospitals or regions. It also sought to describe the aims of these studies and what, if any, feedback was offered to the analysed groups.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 October 2023 that applied surgical quality indicators to detect variation in cancer care at the hospital or regional level.

RESULTS

A total of 89 studies assessed 91 unique quality indicators that fell into the following Donabedian domains: process indicators (58; 64%); outcome indicators (26; 29%); structure indicators (6; 7%); and structure and outcome indicators (1; 1%). Purposes of evaluating variation included: identifying outliers (43; 48%); comparing centres with a benchmark (14; 16%); and supplying evidence of practice variation (29; 33%). Only 23 studies (26%) reported providing the results of their analyses back to those supplying data.

CONCLUSION

Comparisons of quality in surgical oncology within and among hospitals and regions have been undertaken in high-income countries. Quality indicators tended to be process measures and reporting focused on identifying outlying hospitals. Few studies offered feedback to data suppliers.

Quality indicators for systemic anticancer therapy services: a systematic review of metrics used to compare quality across healthcare facilities

PURPOSE

The number of systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) regimens has expanded rapidly over the last decade. There is a need to ensure quality of SACT delivery across cancer services and systems in different resource settings to reduce morbidity, mortality, and detrimental economic impact at individual and systems level. Existing literature on SACT focuses on treatment efficacy with few studies on quality or how SACT is delivered within routine care in comparison to radiation and surgical oncology.

METHODS

Systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched and handsearching was undertaken to identify literature on existing quality indicators (QIs) that detect meaningful variations in the quality of SACT delivery across different healthcare facilities, regions, or countries. Data extraction was undertaken by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

This review identified 63 distinct QIs from 15 papers. The majority were process QIs (n = 55, 87.3%) relating to appropriateness of treatment and guideline adherence (n = 28, 44.4%). There were few outcome QIs (n = 7, 11.1%) and only one structural QI (n = 1, 1.6%). Included studies solely focused on breast, colorectal, lung, and skin cancer. All but one studies were conducted in high-income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review highlight a significant lack of research on SACT QIs particularly those appropriate for resource-constrained settings in low- and middle-income countries. This review should form the basis for future work in transforming performance measurement of SACT provision, through context-specific QI SACT development, validation, and implementation.

What are the appropriate thresholds for High Quality Performance Indicators for breast surgery in Australia and New Zealand?

Aim

To evaluate BreastSurgANZ members’ compliance at various threshold rates for 4 evaluable High-Quality Performance Indicators (HQPIs) introduced to improve patient care. To benchmark global best practice to assist in determining the eventual threshold standards.

Method

BreastSurgANZ Quality Audit data 2012–2016 & 2018 was used to determine rates of attainment through a range of thresholds for 4 HQPI’s. Rates were assessed for different volume surgeons and comparison made to international standards.

Results

1.3761 patients needing mastectomy for in situ disease, if the threshold rate for immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) was ≥ 40% then 30% of all members and 78% of very high-volume surgeons achieved that rate, which is comparable to international recommendations.

2.26,007 patients requiring mastectomy, if the threshold rate for IBR was ≥ 20% then 28% of all surgeons and 78% very high-volume surgeons met the standard. This is below most international recommendations.

3. For 31,698 invasive tumours ≤ 2 cm, if the threshold rate for breast conservation was ≥ 70% then 64% of all surgeons met the standard; 70% is comparable internationally.

4.1382 women =<50 years if the threshold rate for neoadjuvant chemotherapy was set at ≥ 15% then 36% of surgeons complied; 15% is below most international recommendations.

Conclusions

Even at these modest thresholds there are low levels of achievement by BreastSurgANZ members with high volume surgeons more likely to comply. These thresholds are either comparable or lower than globally accepted standards. Members should strive to meet, even exceed these important goals as they are a metric of improved patient care.

•

High quality performance indicators are important for driving improvements in care.

•

Our threshold standards for IBR for insitu disease are comparable internationally.

•

Threshold indicators for invasive breast cancer are well below international standards.

•

Members are achieving internationally comparable rates of breast conservation.

•

Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for women <50yrs is below international standards.

The quality of invasive breast cancer care for low reimbursement rate patients: A retrospective study

Though evidence-based treatments have been recommended for breast cancer, underuse of the treatments was still observed. To certain extent, patients' access to care, which can be enhanced by increasing the coverage of health insurance, could account for the current underuse in recommended care. This study aimed to examine the association between different proportions of reimbursement and quality of recommended breast cancer care, as well as length of hospital stay. In this retrospective study, 3669 patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 1 June, 2011 and 30 June, 2013 were recruited. Seven quality indicators from preoperative diagnosis procedures to adjuvant therapy and one composite indicator were selected as dependent variables. Logistic regression and generalized linear models were used to explore the association between quality of care and length of hospital stay with different reimbursement rates. Compared with UEBMI (urban employment basic medical insurance), which represented high level reimbursement rate, patients with lower rates of reimbursement were less likely to receive core biopsy, HER-2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor-2) testing, BCS (breast conserving surgery), SLNB (sentinel lymph nodes biopsy), adjuvant therapy and hormonal treatment. No significant difference in preoperative length of hospital stay was observed among the three insurance schemes, however URBMI (urban resident basic medical insurance) insured patients stayed longer for total length of hospital stay. Significant disparities in utilization of evidence-based breast cancer care among patients with different proportions of reimbursement were observed. Patients with lower rate of reimbursement were less likely to receive recommended care. Our findings could provide important support for further healthcare reform and quality improvement in breast cancer care.

Improving Care With a Portfolio of Physician-Led Cancer Quality Measures at an Academic Center

PURPOSE

Development and implementation of robust reporting processes to systematically provide quality data to care teams in a timely manner is challenging. National cancer quality measures are useful, but the manual data collection required is resource intensive, and reporting is delayed. We designed a largely automated measurement system with our multidisciplinary cancer care programs (CCPs) to identify, measure, and improve quality metrics that were meaningful to the care teams and their patients.

METHODS

Each CCP physician leader collaborated with the cancer quality team to identify metrics, abiding by established guiding principles. Financial incentive was provided to the CCPs if performance at the end of the study period met predetermined targets. Reports were developed and provided to the CCP physician leaders on a monthly or quarterly basis, for dissemination to their CCP teams.

RESULTS

A total of 15 distinct quality measures were collected in depth for the first time at this cancer center. Metrics spanned the patient care continuum, from diagnosis through end of life or survivorship care. All metrics improved over the study period, met their targets, and earned a financial incentive for their CCP.

CONCLUSION

Our quality program had three essential elements that led to its success: (1) engaging physicians in choosing the quality measures and prespecifying goals, (2) using automated extraction methods for rapid and timely feedback on improvement and progress toward achieving goals, and (3) offering a financial team-based incentive if prespecified goals were met.

Longitudinal cohort study to determine effectiveness of a novel simulated case and feedback system to improve clinical pathway adherence in breast, lung and GI cancers

OBJECTIVES

This study examined whether a measurement and feedback system led to improvements in adherence to clinical pathways.

DESIGN

The M-QURE (Moffitt-Quality, Understanding, Research and Evidence) Initiative was introduced in 2012 to enhance and improve adherence to pathways at Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC) in three broad clinical areas: breast, lung and gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. M-QURE used simulated patient vignettes based on MCC's Clinical Pathways to benchmark clinician adherence and monitor change over three rounds of implementation.

SETTING

MCC, located in Tampa, Florida, a National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center.

PARTICIPANTS

Three non-overlapping cohorts at MCC (one each in breast, lung and GI) totalling 48 providers participated in this study, with each member of the multidisciplinary team (composed of medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons and advanced practice providers) invited to participate.

INTERVENTIONS

Each participant was asked to complete a set of simulated patient vignettes over three rounds within their own cancer specialty. Participants were required to complete all assigned vignettes over each of the three rounds, or they would be excluded from this study.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Increased domain and overall provider care adherence to clinical pathways, as scored by blinded physician abstractors.

RESULTS

We found significant improvements in pathway adherence between the third and first rounds of data collection particularly for workup and treatment of cancer cases. By clinical grouping, breast improved by 13.6% (p<0.001), and lung improved by 12.1% (p<0.001) over baseline, whereas GI showed a decrease of 1.4% (p=0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical pathway adherence improved in a short timeframe for breast and lung cancers using group-level measurement and individual feedback. This suggests that a measurement and feedback programme may be a useful tool to improve clinical pathway adherence.

Evaluating the effect of clinical care pathways on quality of cancer care: analysis of breast, colon and rectal cancer pathways

PURPOSE

Substantial gaps exist between clinical practice and evidence-based cancer care, potentially leading to adverse clinical outcomes and decreased quality of life for cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of clinical pathways as a tool for improving quality of cancer care, using breast, colon, and rectal cancer pathways as demonstrations.

METHODS

Newly diagnosed patients with invasive breast, colon, and rectal cancer were enrolled as pre-pathway groups, while patients with the same diagnoses treated according to clinical pathways were recruited for post-pathway groups.

RESULTS

Compliance with preoperative core biopsy or fine-needle aspiration, utilization of sentinel lymph node biopsy, and proportion of patients whose tumor hormone receptor status was stated in pathology report were significantly increased after implementation of clinical pathway for breast cancer. For colon cancer, compliance with two care processes was significantly improved: surgical resection with anastomosis and resection of at least 12 lymph nodes. Regarding rectal cancer, there was a significant increase in compliance with preoperative evaluation of depth of tumor invasion, total mesorectal excision treatment of middle- or low-position rectal cancer, and proportion of patients who had undergone rectal cancer surgery whose pathology report included margin status. Moreover, total length of hospital stay was decreased remarkably for all three cancer types, and postoperative complications remained unchanged following implementation of the clinical pathways.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical pathways can improve compliance with standard care by implementing evidence-based quality indicators in daily practice, which could serve as a useful tool for narrowing the gap between clinical practice and evidence-based care.

Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care: improvements in breast cancer quality indicators during a 3-year interval

BACKGROUND

The Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care (FIQCC), composed of 11 practice sites across Florida, conducted its initial evaluation of adherence to breast cancer quality of care indicators (QCI) in 2006, with feedback provided to encourage quality improvement efforts at participating sites. In this study, our objective was to reassess changes over time resulting from these efforts.

STUDY DESIGN

Quality care indicators were derived from the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Surgeons, and expert panel consensus. Medical records were reviewed for breast cancer patients first seen by medical oncologists in 2009 at the FIQCC sites, using the same performance indicators as in 2006. Statistical comparisons of 2006 vs 2009 data across sites were made by Pearson chi-square exact test using Monte Carlo estimation.

RESULTS

Charts of 602 patients in 2006 and 636 patients in 2009 were compared. Performance on medical oncology QCI improved over time for documentation of clinical trial participation discussion (p = 0.001), documentation of consent for chemotherapy (p = 0.047), definitive surgery done after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.017), and planned dose of chemotherapy consistent with published regimens (p = 0.02). Improvements in surgical QCI were seen for documentation of specimen orientation (p < 0.001), inking of margins (p < 0.0001), and performance of sentinel lymph node biopsy (p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

The 2006 FIQCC study identified several medical and surgical oncology QCI improvement needs. Quality improvement efforts resulted in better performance for numerous metrics, therefore speaking to the benefits of reassessment of adherence to performance indicators to guide QCI efforts.

Perioperative measures to optimize margin clearance in breast conserving surgery

Margin status is one of the most important determinants of local recurrence following breast conserving surgery. The fact that up to 60% of patients undergoing breast conserving surgery require re-excision highlights the importance of optimizing margin clearance. In this review we summarize the following perioperative measures that aim to enhance margin clearance: (1) patient risk stratification, specifically risk factors and nomograms, (2) preoperative imaging, (3) intraoperative techniques including wire-guided localization, radioguided surgery, intraoperative ultrasound-guided resection, intraoperative specimen radiography, standardized cavity shaving, and ink-directed focal re-excision; (4) and intraoperative pathology assessment techniques, namely frozen section analysis and imprint cytology. Novel surgical techniques as well as emerging technologies are also reviewed. Effective treatment requires accurate preoperative planning, developing and implementing a consistent definition of margin clearance, and using tools that provide detailed real-time intraoperative information on margin status.

Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care: improvements on colorectal cancer quality of care indicators during a 3-year interval

BACKGROUND

The quality of cancer care has become a national priority; however, there are few ongoing efforts to assist medical oncology practices in identifying areas for improvement. The Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care is a consortium of 11 medical oncology practices that evaluates the quality of cancer care across Florida. Within this practice-based system of self-assessment, we determined adherence to colorectal cancer quality of care indicators (QCIs) in 2006, disseminated results to each practice and reassessed adherence in 2009. The current report focuses on evaluating the direction and magnitude of change in adherence to QCIs for colorectal cancer patients between the 2 assessments.

STUDY DESIGN

Medical records were reviewed for all colorectal cancer patients seen by a medical oncologist in 2006 (n = 489) and 2009 (n = 511) at 10 participating practices. Thirty-five indicators were evaluated individually and changes in QCI adherence over time and by site were examined.

RESULTS

Significant improvements were noted from 2006 to 2009, with large gains in surgical/pathological QCIs (eg, documenting rectal radial margin status, lymphovascular invasion, and the review of ≥ 12 lymph nodes) and medical oncology QCIs (documenting planned treatment regimen and providing recommended neoadjuvant regimens). Documentation of perineural invasion and radial margins significantly improved; however, adherence remained low (47% and 71%, respectively). There was significant variability in adherence for some QCIs across institutions at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care practices conducted self-directed quality-improvement efforts during a 3-year interval and overall adherence to QCIs improved. However, adherence remained low for several indicators, suggesting that organized improvement efforts might be needed for QCIs that remained consistently low over time. Findings demonstrate how efforts such as the Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care are useful for evaluating and improving the quality of cancer care at a regional level.

Benchmarking and audit of breast units improves quality of care

Quality Indicators (QIs) are measures of health care quality that make use of readily available hospital inpatient administrative data. Assessment quality of care can be performed on different levels: national, regional, on a hospital basis or on an individual basis. It can be a mandatory or voluntary system. In all cases development of an adequate database for data extraction, and feedback of the findings is of paramount importance. In the present paper we performed a Medline search on "QIs and breast cancer" and "benchmarking and breast cancer care", and we have added some data from personal experience. The current data clearly show that the use of QIs for breast cancer care, regular internal and external audit of performance of breast units, and benchmarking are effective to improve quality of care. Adherence to guidelines improves markedly (particularly regarding adjuvant treatment) and there are data emerging showing that this results in a better outcome. As quality assurance benefits patients, it will be a challenge for the medical and hospital community to develop affordable quality control systems, which are not leading to excessive workload.

Michigan oncology practices showed varying adherence rates to practice guidelines, but quality interventions improved care

Despite improvements in care for patients with cancer, and in their survival rates, it is not clear that best practices are uniformly delivered to patients. We measured the quality of outpatient cancer care, using validated quality measures, in a consortium of thirty-six outpatient oncology practices in Michigan. We discovered that throughout the measurement period, for breast and colorectal cancer care, there was a more than 85 percent rate of adherence to quality care processes. For end-of-life care processes, the adherence rate was 73 percent, and for symptom and toxicity management care processes, adherence was 56 percent. In particular, we found variations in care around the fundamental oncologic task of management of cancer pain. To address quality gaps, we developed interventions to improve adherence to treatment guidelines, improve pain management, and incorporate palliative care into oncology practice. We concluded that statewide consortia that assume much of the cost burden of quality improvement activities can bring together oncology providers and payers to measure quality and design interventions to improve care.

Evaluating the quality of colorectal cancer care in the state of Florida: results from the Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care

PURPOSE

The Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care (FIQCC) was established to evaluate the quality of cancer care at the regional level across the state of Florida. This study assessed adherence to validated quality indicators in colorectal cancer (CRC) and the variability in adherence by practice site, volume, and patient age.

METHODS

The FIQCC is a consortium of 11 medical oncology practices in Florida. Medical record reviews were conducted for 507 patients diagnosed with CRC and seen as new medical oncology patients in 2006. Thirty-five indicators were evaluated individually and categorized across clinical domains and components of care.

RESULTS

The mean adherence for 19 of 35 individual indicators was > 85%. Pathology reports were compliant on reporting depth of tumor invasion (96%; range, 86% to 100%), grade (93%; range, 72% to 100%), and status of proximal and distal surgical resection margins (97%; range. 86% to 100%); however, documentation of lymphovascular and perineural invasion did not meet adherence standards (76%; range, 53% to 100% and 39%; range, 5% to 83%, respectively). Among patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer, documentation of the status of surgical radial margins was consistently low across sites (42%; range, 0% to 100%; P = .19). Documentation of planned treatment regimens for adjuvant chemotherapy was noted in only 58% of eligible patients.

CONCLUSION

In this large regional initiative, we found high levels of adherence to more than half of the established quality indicators. Although the quality of care delivered within FIQCC practices seems to be high, several components of care were identified that warrant further scrutiny on both a systemic level and at individual centers.

Quality of care in non-small-cell lung cancer: findings from 11 oncology practices in Florida

BACKGROUND

Limited data on the quality of care in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are available. This study aims to assess the quality of care in NSCLC among 11 medical oncology practices in Florida and to explore the impact of practice volume on care.

METHODS

Clinical guidelines and existing indicators were reviewed, and an expert survey was conducted to identify a set of process-based quality of care indicators (QI). Medical records of new patients with NSCLC seen in 2006 were retrospectively reviewed for the adherence to these QIs.

RESULTS

We reviewed the compliance with a set of 11 QIs (four general and seven NSCLC specific) among 531 patients. The patient median age was 68 years; 51% were male, and 49% had advanced NSCLC. The median adherence rates to general QIs and NSCLC-specific QIs were 95% (range 69% to 99%) and 69% (range 29% to 91%), respectively. We identified three main areas of deficiencies: chemotherapy consenting (69%), brain staging for stage III NSCLC (59%), and performance status assessment for advanced stages (42%). Significant variation in the adherence rates across practice sites was observed in five of 11 QIs.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of this data set of participating institutions in Florida, several areas in the care of patients with NSCLC were identified as targets for future quality improvement efforts.