BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer outcomes vary considerably among hospitals. Assessing pancreatic cancer care by using quality indicators could help reduce this variability. However, valid quality indicators are not currently available for pancreatic cancer management, and a composite assessment of the quality of pancreatic cancer care in the United States has not been done. METHODS: Potential quality indicators were identified from the literature, consensus guidelines, and interviews with experts. A panel of 20 pancreatic cancer experts ranked potential quality indicators for validity based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. The rankings were rated as valid (high or moderate validity) or not valid. Adherence with valid indicators at both the patient and the hospital levels and a composite measure of adherence at the hospital level were assessed using data from the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2005) for 49 065 patients treated at 1134 hospitals. Summary statistics were calculated for each individual candidate quality indicator to assess the median ranking and distribution. RESULTS: Of the 50 potential quality indicators identified, 43 were rated as valid (29 as high and 14 as moderate validity). Of the 43 valid indicators, 11 (25.6%) assessed structural factors, 19 (44.2%) assessed clinical processes of care, four (9.3%) assessed treatment appropriateness, four (9.3%) assessed efficiency, and five (11.6%) assessed outcomes. Patient-level adherence with individual indicators ranged from 49.6% to 97.2%, whereas hospital-level adherence with individual indicators ranged from 6.8% to 99.9%. Of the 10 component indicators (contributing 1 point each) that were used to develop the composite score, most hospitals were adherent with fewer than half of the indicators (median score = 4; interquartile range = 3-5). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the quality indicators developed in this study, there is considerable variability in the quality of pancreatic cancer care in the United States. Hospitals can use these indicators to evaluate the pancreatic cancer care they provide and to identify potential quality improvement opportunities.
BACKGROUND:Pancreatic cancer outcomes vary considerably among hospitals. Assessing pancreatic cancer care by using quality indicators could help reduce this variability. However, valid quality indicators are not currently available for pancreatic cancer management, and a composite assessment of the quality of pancreatic cancer care in the United States has not been done. METHODS: Potential quality indicators were identified from the literature, consensus guidelines, and interviews with experts. A panel of 20 pancreatic cancer experts ranked potential quality indicators for validity based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. The rankings were rated as valid (high or moderate validity) or not valid. Adherence with valid indicators at both the patient and the hospital levels and a composite measure of adherence at the hospital level were assessed using data from the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2005) for 49 065 patients treated at 1134 hospitals. Summary statistics were calculated for each individual candidate quality indicator to assess the median ranking and distribution. RESULTS: Of the 50 potential quality indicators identified, 43 were rated as valid (29 as high and 14 as moderate validity). Of the 43 valid indicators, 11 (25.6%) assessed structural factors, 19 (44.2%) assessed clinical processes of care, four (9.3%) assessed treatment appropriateness, four (9.3%) assessed efficiency, and five (11.6%) assessed outcomes. Patient-level adherence with individual indicators ranged from 49.6% to 97.2%, whereas hospital-level adherence with individual indicators ranged from 6.8% to 99.9%. Of the 10 component indicators (contributing 1 point each) that were used to develop the composite score, most hospitals were adherent with fewer than half of the indicators (median score = 4; interquartile range = 3-5). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the quality indicators developed in this study, there is considerable variability in the quality of pancreatic cancer care in the United States. Hospitals can use these indicators to evaluate the pancreatic cancer care they provide and to identify potential quality improvement opportunities.
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lilly D Engineer; Bradford D Winters; Christine M Weston; Allen Zhang; Ritu Sharma; Eric Bass; David Jones; Amy Rosen; Frank B Yoon; Ann Borzecki; Sydney M Dy Journal: J Healthc Qual Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.095
Authors: Ricard Ferrer; Antonio Artigas; Mitchell M Levy; Jesús Blanco; Gumersindo González-Díaz; José Garnacho-Montero; Jordi Ibáñez; Eduardo Palencia; Manuel Quintana; María Victoria de la Torre-Prados Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ching-Wei D Tzeng; Matthew H G Katz; Jason B Fleming; Jeffrey E Lee; Peter W T Pisters; Holly M Holmes; Gauri R Varadhachary; Robert A Wolff; James L Abbruzzese; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Thomas A Aloia Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Sachin Wani; V Raman Muthusamy; Nicholas J Shaheen; Rena Yadlapati; Robert Wilson; Julian A Abrams; Jacques Bergman; Amitabh Chak; Kenneth Chang; Ananya Das; John Dumot; Steven A Edmundowicz; Glenn Eisen; Gary W Falk; M Brian Fennerty; Lauren Gerson; Gregory G Ginsberg; David Grande; Matt Hall; Ben Harnke; John Inadomi; Janusz Jankowski; Charles J Lightdale; Jitin Makker; Robert D Odze; Oliver Pech; Richard E Sampliner; Stuart Spechler; George Triadafilopoulos; Michael B Wallace; Kenneth Wang; Irving Waxman; Srinadh Komanduri Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Brian T Kalish; Charles M Vollmer; Tara S Kent; William H Nealon; Jennifer F Tseng; Mark P Callery Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-11-06 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Raul S Gonzalez; Pelin Bagci; Olca Basturk; Michelle D Reid; Serdar Balci; Jessica H Knight; So Yeon Kong; Bahar Memis; Kee-Taek Jang; Nobuyuki Ohike; Takuma Tajiri; Sudeshna Bandyopadhyay; Alyssa M Krasinskas; Grace E Kim; Jeanette D Cheng; N Volkan Adsay Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Margaret A Park; Roland Reinehr; Dieter Häussinger; Christina Voelkel-Johnson; Besim Ogretmen; Adly Yacoub; Steven Grant; Paul Dent Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2010-08-03 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Rena Yadlapati; Andrew J Gawron; Rajesh N Keswani; Karl Bilimoria; Donald O Castell; Kerry B Dunbar; Chandra P Gyawali; Blair A Jobe; Philip O Katz; David A Katzka; Brian E Lacy; Benson T Massey; Joel E Richter; Felice Schnoll-Sussman; Stuart J Spechler; Roger Tatum; Marcelo F Vela; John E Pandolfino Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Brent T Xia; David A Habib; Vikrom K Dhar; Nick C Levinsky; Young Kim; Dennis J Hanseman; Jeffrey M Sutton; Gregory C Wilson; Milton Smith; Kyuran Ann Choe; Jeffrey J Sussman; Syed A Ahmad; Daniel E Abbott Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Danielle K DePeralta; Takuya Ogami; Jun-Min Zhou; Michael J Schell; Benjamin D Powers; Pamela J Hodul; Mokenge P Malafa; Jason B Fleming Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 3.647