BACKGROUND: The National Consortium of Breast Centers defines "quality" of breast cancer care as "accurate evaluation and appropriate services ... in a timely manner." We sought to determine timeliness of care and relationship to patient satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: The electronic medical records of breast cancer patients seen at a breast center from 2004 through 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. Dates of patient service were audited. A postal survey was then conducted to determine patient satisfaction with timeliness. RESULTS: Median time interval in business days from abnormal screening mammogram to diagnostic evaluation and core needle biopsy was 6 days. Median time intervals from core needle biopsy to core needle biopsy pathology report and then subsequent surgical consultation and breast cancer operation were 1, 3, and 7 days, respectively. Breast MRI, systemic imaging, plastic surgery consultation, type of surgery, and patient choice prolonged time to treatment. More than 90% of breast cancer patients who responded to our postal survey had their expectations met or exceeded for the dates of service provided for diagnostic evaluation and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of timeliness as a quality indicator for breast cancer care is complex and requires an assessment of whether patient expectations were met for dates of service. Factors that prolong time to treatment, such as additional imaging, should be considered for risk adjustment for peer performance comparison and compliance with published timeliness target goals. Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The National Consortium of Breast Centers defines "quality" of breast cancer care as "accurate evaluation and appropriate services ... in a timely manner." We sought to determine timeliness of care and relationship to patient satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: The electronic medical records of breast cancerpatients seen at a breast center from 2004 through 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. Dates of patient service were audited. A postal survey was then conducted to determine patient satisfaction with timeliness. RESULTS: Median time interval in business days from abnormal screening mammogram to diagnostic evaluation and core needle biopsy was 6 days. Median time intervals from core needle biopsy to core needle biopsy pathology report and then subsequent surgical consultation and breast cancer operation were 1, 3, and 7 days, respectively. Breast MRI, systemic imaging, plastic surgery consultation, type of surgery, and patient choice prolonged time to treatment. More than 90% of breast cancerpatients who responded to our postal survey had their expectations met or exceeded for the dates of service provided for diagnostic evaluation and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of timeliness as a quality indicator for breast cancer care is complex and requires an assessment of whether patient expectations were met for dates of service. Factors that prolong time to treatment, such as additional imaging, should be considered for risk adjustment for peer performance comparison and compliance with published timeliness target goals. Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Christine B Weldon; Sarah M Friedewald; Swati A Kulkarni; Melissa A Simon; Ruth C Carlos; Jonathan B Strauss; Mikele M Bunce; Art Small; Julia R Trosman Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Richard J Bleicher; Karen Ruth; Elin R Sigurdson; Eric Ross; Yu-Ning Wong; Sameer A Patel; Marcia Boraas; Neal S Topham; Brian L Egleston Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rebecca Selove; Barbara Kilbourne; Mary Kay Fadden; Maureen Sanderson; Maya Foster; Regina Offodile; Baqar Husaini; Charles Mouton; Robert S Levine Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2016-10-20
Authors: Mehra Golshan; Katya Losk; Melissa A Mallory; Kristen Camuso; Susan Troyan; Nancy U Lin; Sarah Kadish; Craig A Bunnell Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Osman Cem Yilmaz; Nuh Zafer Cantürk; Abut Kebudi; Sertaç Ata Güler; Ahmet Erkek; Mahdi Rezai; Bahadir M Güllüoğlu Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Amelie Ramirez; Eliseo Perez-Stable; Frank Penedo; Gregory Talavera; J Emilio Carrillo; María Fernández; Alan Holden; Edgar Munoz; Sandra San Miguel; Kipling Gallion Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 6.860