Literature DB >> 19910915

Creating a system for performance improvement in cancer care: Cancer Care Ontario's clinical governance framework.

Katya M Duvalko1, Michael Sherar, Carol Sawka.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Good governance, clinician engagement, and clear accountabilities for achieving specific outcomes are crucial components for improving the quality of care at both an organizational and health system level.
METHODS: This article describes the benefits and results reported by Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) in transforming from a direct provider of cancer services to an organization whose responsibilities include improving the quality of care across the province's cancer system. The significant challenges in establishing accountability in the absence of direct operational authority are discussed. Case examples illustrate how the structures and processes created through CCO's clinical governance framework achieved measurable improvements in cancer care outcomes.
RESULTS: Challenges in establishing accountability were addressed through the creation of a clinical governance framework that integrated clinical accountability with administrative accountability in an ongoing performance improvement cycle. The performance improvement cycle includes four key steps: (1) the collection of system-level performance data and the development of quality indicators, (2) the synthesis of data, evidence, and expert opinion into clear clinical and organizational guidance, (3) knowledge transfer through a coordinated program of clinician engagement, and (4) a comprehensive system of performance management through the use of contractual agreements, financial incentives, and public reporting.
CONCLUSIONS: CCO has succeeded in developing a clinical governance and performance improvement system that measures and improves access to care in the treatment phase of the care continuum. Future efforts will need to focus on expanding quality improvement initiatives to all phases of cancer care, measuring the appropriateness of care, and improving the measurement and management of the patient cancer care experience.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19910915     DOI: 10.1177/107327480901600403

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Control        ISSN: 1073-2748            Impact factor:   3.302


  8 in total

1.  National consensus quality indicators to assess quality of care for active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer: An evidence-informed, modified Delphi survey of Canadian urologists/radiation oncologists.

Authors:  Narhari Timilshina; Antonio Finelli; George Tomlinson; Anna Gagliardi; Beate Sander; Shabbir M H Alibhai
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Accountability in the ontario cancer services system: a qualitative study of system leaders' perspectives.

Authors:  Jessica Bytautas; Mark Dobrow; Terrence Sullivan; Adalsteinn Brown
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2014-09

3.  A mixed methods approach to understand variation in lung cancer practice and the role of guidelines.

Authors:  Melissa C Brouwers; Julie Makarski; Kimberly Garcia; Saira Akram; Gail E Darling; Peter M Ellis; William K Evans; Mita Giacomini; Lorraine Martelli-Reid; Yee C Ung
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2014-03-22       Impact factor: 7.327

4.  Implementation and use of electronic synoptic cancer reporting: an explorative case study of six Norwegian pathology laboratories.

Authors:  Bettina Casati; Hans Kristian Haugland; Gunn Marit J Barstad; Roger Bjugn
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 7.327

5.  Preliminary Results of the Adoption and Application of the Integrated Comprehensive Care Bundle Care Program When Treating Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Authors:  Jason R Guertin; James M Bowen; Carolyn Gosse; Gord Blackhouse; Daria J O'Reilly; Emanuel Baltaga; Gerard Cox; Donna Johnson; Brandi Le Blanc; Jane Loncke; Stewart Pugsley; Ravi Sivakumaran; Laura Wheatley; Kevin Smith; Jean-Eric Tarride
Journal:  Can Respir J       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 2.409

Review 6.  What do end-users want to know about managing the performance of healthcare delivery systems? Co-designing a context-specific and practice-relevant research agenda.

Authors:  Jenna M Evans; Julie E Gilbert; Jasmine Bacola; Victoria Hagens; Vicky Simanovski; Philip Holm; Rebecca Harvey; Peter G Blake; Garth Matheson
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2021-10-11

7.  Quality indicators of clinical cancer care (QC3) in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Valentina Bianchi; Alessandra Spitale; Laura Ortelli; Luca Mazzucchelli; Andrea Bordoni
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Factors affecting the implementation and use of electronic templates for histopathology cancer reporting.

Authors:  Bettina Casati; Hans Kristian Haugland; Gunn Marit J Barstad; Roger Bjugn
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 5.306

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.