Literature DB >> 18382239

Assessing the quality of prostate cancer care.

David F Penson1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Until recently, little was known about the quality of prostate cancer care in the United States. This article provides an overview of the methodology of quality of care research, reviews the available quality measures in prostate cancer and presents an overview of the existing literature on the quality of prostate cancer care in the US. RECENT
FINDINGS: Researchers have applied methodologies developed in other conditions to construct tools to measure the quality of care in this disease. Initially, researchers from the RAND Corporation developed a preliminary performance measure set. This measure set was tested in a number of settings. Along with a number of clinical guidelines, the RAND measures served as the basis of new prostate cancer measures developed by the American Medical Association's Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement. Recent studies document that patients undergoing radical prostatectomy had worse documented compliance with quality indicators than those undergoing external beam radiotherapy.
SUMMARY: There is clearly room for improvement in prostate cancer quality of care in the US. If providers do not take the initiative and address these shortcomings, providers and policymakers will implement changes that may not be in the best interests of patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18382239     DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e3282f9b393

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Opin Urol        ISSN: 0963-0643            Impact factor:   2.309


  6 in total

1.  Association of Preexisting Symptoms with Treatment Decisions among Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Steven B Zeliadt; Scott D Ramsey; Arnold L Potosky; Neeraj K Arora; David K Blough; Ingrid Oakley-Girvan; Ann S Hamilton; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; David F Penson
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-07-01       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 2.  Racial variation in the pattern and quality of care for prostate cancer in the USA: mind the gap.

Authors:  Daniel A Barocas; David F Penson
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-06-14       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Automating the Determination of Prostate Cancer Risk Strata From Electronic Medical Records.

Authors:  Justin R Gregg; Maximilian Lang; Lucy L Wang; Matthew J Resnick; Sandeep K Jain; Jeremy L Warner; Daniel A Barocas
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2017-06-08

4.  [What is most important is what comes across : Urological guidelines from the target group's point of view].

Authors:  J Busch; C Röllig; L Weissbach; C Kempkensteffen; S Hinz; C Jahnke; M Schostak; M Lein; S Weikert; C Stephan; S Deger; G Ollenschläger; K Miller; M Schrader
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Using a population-based observational cohort study to address difficult comparative effectiveness research questions: the CEASAR study.

Authors:  Daniel A Barocas; Vivien Chen; Matthew Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; John J Graff; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann Hamilton; Karen Hoffman; Sherrie Kaplan; Tatsuki Koyama; Alicia Morgans; Lisa E Paddock; Sharon Phillips; Matthew J Resnick; Antoinette Stroup; Xiao-Cheng Wu; David F Penson
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.744

6.  Impact of Adherence to Quality Measures for Localized Prostate Cancer on Patient-reported Health-related Quality of Life Outcomes, Patient Satisfaction, and Treatment-related Complications.

Authors:  William Sohn; Matthew J Resnick; Sheldon Greenfield; Sherrie H Kaplan; Sharon Phillips; Tatsuki Koyama; Michael Goodman; Ann S Hamilton; Mia Hashibe; Karen E Hoffman; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette M Stroup; Xiao-Cheng Wu; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 3.178

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.