J S Haas1, E F Cook, A L Puopolo, H R Burstin, T A Brennan. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, and the Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143, USA. jhaas@itsa.ucsf.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with variation in the quality of care for women with 2 common breast problems: an abnormal mammogram or a clinical breast complaint. DESIGN: Cross-sectional patient survey and medical record review. SETTING: Ten general internal medicine practices in the Greater Boston area. PARTICIPANTS: Women who had an abnormal radiographic result from a screening mammogram or underwent mammography for a clinical breast complaint (N = 579). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three measures of the quality of care were used: (1) whether or not a woman received an evaluation in compliance with a clinical guideline; (2) the number of days until the appropriate resolution of this episode of breast care if any; and (3) a woman's overall satisfaction with her care. Sixty-nine percent of women received care consistent with the guideline. After adjustment, women over 50 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% [CI], 1.06 to 2.36) and those with an abnormal mammogram (compared with a clinical breast complaint: OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.16 to 2.64) were more likely to receive recommended care and had a shorter time to resolution of their breast problem. Women with a managed care plan were also more likely to receive care in compliance with the guideline (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.64) and have a more timely resolution. There were no differences in satisfaction by age or type of breast problem, but women with a managed care plan were less likely to rate their care as excellent (43% vs 53%, P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found that a substantial proportion of women with a breast problem managed by generalists did not receive care consistent with a clinical guideline, particularly younger women with a clinical breast complaint and a normal or benign-appearing mammogram.
OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with variation in the quality of care for women with 2 common breast problems: an abnormal mammogram or a clinical breast complaint. DESIGN: Cross-sectional patient survey and medical record review. SETTING: Ten general internal medicine practices in the Greater Boston area. PARTICIPANTS: Women who had an abnormal radiographic result from a screening mammogram or underwent mammography for a clinical breast complaint (N = 579). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three measures of the quality of care were used: (1) whether or not a woman received an evaluation in compliance with a clinical guideline; (2) the number of days until the appropriate resolution of this episode of breast care if any; and (3) a woman's overall satisfaction with her care. Sixty-nine percent of women received care consistent with the guideline. After adjustment, women over 50 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% [CI], 1.06 to 2.36) and those with an abnormal mammogram (compared with a clinical breast complaint: OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.16 to 2.64) were more likely to receive recommended care and had a shorter time to resolution of their breast problem. Women with a managed care plan were also more likely to receive care in compliance with the guideline (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.64) and have a more timely resolution. There were no differences in satisfaction by age or type of breast problem, but women with a managed care plan were less likely to rate their care as excellent (43% vs 53%, P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found that a substantial proportion of women with a breast problem managed by generalists did not receive care consistent with a clinical guideline, particularly younger women with a clinical breast complaint and a normal or benign-appearing mammogram.
Authors: B Cady; G D Steele; M Morrow; B Gardner; B L Smith; N C Lee; H W Lawson; D P Winchester Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 1998 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: J W Eley; H A Hill; V W Chen; D F Austin; M N Wesley; H B Muss; R S Greenberg; R J Coates; P Correa; C K Redmond Journal: JAMA Date: 1994-09-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alecia Malin Fair; Debra Wujcik; Jin-Mann Sally Lin; Wei Zheng; Kathleen M Egan; Ana M Grau; Victoria L Champion; Kenneth A Wallston Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2010-02
Authors: Rose C Maly; Barbara Leake; Cynthia M Mojica; Yihang Liu; Allison L Diamant; Amardeep Thind Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Gary M Longton; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Heidi D Nelson; Margaret S Pepe; Kimberly H Allison; Stuart J Schnitt; Frances P O'Malley; Donald L Weaver Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Chun-Ru Chien; Rocio Moguel; Mike Hernandez; Richard A Hajek; Lovell A Jones Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Debra Wujcik; Yu Shyr; Ming Li; Margaret F Clayton; Lee Ellington; Usha Menon; Kathi Mooney Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Silvia Tejeda; Julie S Darnell; Young I Cho; Melinda R Stolley; Talar W Markossian; Elizabeth A Calhoun Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 2.681