Literature DB >> 19169123

Adherence to quality indicators and survival in patients with breast cancer.

Skye H Cheng1, C Jason Wang, Jin-Long Lin, Cheng-Fang Horng, Mei-Chun Lu, Steven M Asch, Lee H Hilborne, Mei-Ching Liu, Chii-Ming Chen, Andrew T Huang.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: International initiatives increasingly advocate physician adherence to clinical protocols that have been shown to improve outcomes, yet the process-outcome relationship for adhering to breast cancer care protocol is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: This study explores whether 100% adherence to a set of quality indicators applied to individuals with breast cancer is associated with better survival. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
SUBJECTS: Ten quality indicators (4 diagnosis-related and 6 treatment-related indicators) were used to measure the quality of care in 1378 breast cancer patients treated from 1995 to 2001. Adherence to each indicator was based on the number of procedures performed divided by the number of patients eligible for that procedure. The main analysis of adherence was dichotomous (ie, 100% adherence vs. <100% adherence). MEASURES: The outcome measures studied were 5-year overall survival and progression-free survival, calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox's proportional hazard regression model was used for univariate and multivariate analyses.
RESULTS: Most patients received care that demonstrated good adherence to the quality indicators. Multivariate analysis revealed that 100% adherence to entire set of quality indicators was significantly associated with better overall survival [hazard ratio (HR): 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.63] and progression-free survival (HR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.67). One hundred percent adherence to treatment indicators alone was also associated with statistically significant improvements in overall and progression-free survivals.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study strongly supports that 100% adherence to evidence supported quality-of-care indicators is associated with better survival rates for breast cancer patients and should be a priority for practitioners.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19169123     DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181893c4a

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  14 in total

1.  Quality indicators for sentinel lymph node biopsy: is there room for improvement?

Authors:  Sergio A Acuna; Fernando A Angarita; David R McCready; Jaime Escallon
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.089

2.  Can composite performance measures predict survival of patients with colorectal cancer?

Authors:  Kuo-Piao Chung; Li-Ju Chen; Yao-Jen Chang; Yun-Jau Chang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Improving radiation oncology through clinical audits: Introducing the IROCA project.

Authors:  Maria Glòria Torras; Magdalena Fundowicz; Luisa Aliste; Esther Asensio; Anna Maria Boladeras; Josep Maria Borràs; Luísa Carvalho; Carla Castro; Letizia Deantonio; Ewelina Konstanty; Marco Krengli; Marta Kruszyna; Joana Lencart; Miquel Macià; Susanna Marín; Carles Muñoz-Montplet; Carla Pisani; Diana Pinto; Montserrat Puigdemont; Ferran Guedea; Artur Aguiar; Piotr Milecki; Julian Malicki
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2017-08-11

4.  Implementing chemoradiation treatment for patients with cervical cancer in a comprehensive cancer center community oncology practice.

Authors:  Charles Kunos; Gina Ferris; Steven Waggoner
Journal:  Community Oncol       Date:  2010-10

5.  Adherence to the National Quality Forum (NQF) breast cancer measures within cancer clinical trials: a review from ACOSOG Z0010.

Authors:  Lee G Wilke; Karla V Ballman; Linda M McCall; Armando E Giuliano; Pat W Whitworth; Peter W Blumencranz; Douglas S Reintgen; William E Burak; A Marilyn Leitch; Kelly K Hunt
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-03-23       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Re-examining the significance of surgical volume to breast cancer survival and recurrence versus process quality of care in Taiwan.

Authors:  Raymond N Kuo; Kuo-Piao Chung; Mei-Shu Lai
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Evaluating Clinical Practice Guidelines Based on Their Association with Return to Work in Administrative Claims Data.

Authors:  Eric T Roberts; Eva H DuGoff; Sara E Heins; David I Swedler; Renan C Castillo; Dorianne R Feldman; Stephen T Wegener; Vladimir Canudas-Romo; Gerard F Anderson
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Defining the potential of neoadjuvant chemotherapy use as a quality indicator for bladder cancer care.

Authors:  Goutham Vemana; Kenneth G Nepple; Joel Vetter; Gurdarshan Sandhu; Seth A Strope
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-02-08       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Can patient navigation improve receipt of recommended breast cancer care? Evidence from the National Patient Navigation Research Program.

Authors:  Naomi Y Ko; Julie S Darnell; Elizabeth Calhoun; Karen M Freund; Kristin J Wells; Charles L Shapiro; Donald J Dudley; Steven R Patierno; Kevin Fiscella; Peter Raich; Tracy A Battaglia
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-07-28       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 10.  Quality indicators and quality assessment in child health.

Authors:  P L Kavanagh; W G Adams; C J Wang
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2009-03-22       Impact factor: 3.791

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.