OBJECTIVE: To define a set of quantifiable quality of care indicators (QIs) to measure the standard of care in our institute given to patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Possible QIs were defined and selected by a multidisciplinary project group from recent literature, guidelines, and/or consensus within the project group. In a retrospective study a baseline for each QI was assessed and compared to a predefined benchmark. RESULTS: Four categories of QIs were selected: (1) care management, (2) accessibility and time management, (3) professional competence, and (4) patient factors. A list of 26 QIs was created. In the retrospective study, it became evident that 22 QIs failed to reach their benchmark, because of (1) an inadequate process of care (n = 5), (2) insufficient care given (n = 14), and (3) data not retrievable in retrospective study design (n = 2). Adjustments were made in the different processes of care in order to improve quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: In the face of a complete lack of a QoC registration system for MIBC, we listed 26 quantifiable QIs, to measure QoC in our own institute. Our process of care did not meet 22 of the benchmarks, after which adjustments were made. This QoC registration method is a first step in defining applicable quality of care indicators, for implementation in the clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To define a set of quantifiable quality of care indicators (QIs) to measure the standard of care in our institute given to patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Possible QIs were defined and selected by a multidisciplinary project group from recent literature, guidelines, and/or consensus within the project group. In a retrospective study a baseline for each QI was assessed and compared to a predefined benchmark. RESULTS: Four categories of QIs were selected: (1) care management, (2) accessibility and time management, (3) professional competence, and (4) patient factors. A list of 26 QIs was created. In the retrospective study, it became evident that 22 QIs failed to reach their benchmark, because of (1) an inadequate process of care (n = 5), (2) insufficient care given (n = 14), and (3) data not retrievable in retrospective study design (n = 2). Adjustments were made in the different processes of care in order to improve quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: In the face of a complete lack of a QoC registration system for MIBC, we listed 26 quantifiable QIs, to measure QoC in our own institute. Our process of care did not meet 22 of the benchmarks, after which adjustments were made. This QoC registration method is a first step in defining applicable quality of care indicators, for implementation in the clinical practice.
Authors: Daniel A Barocas; Joann Alvarez; Tatsuki Koyama; Christopher B Anderson; Darryl T Gray; Jay H Fowke; Chaochen You; Sam S Chang; Michael S Cookson; Joseph A Smith; David F Penson Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 6.860