Literature DB >> 22192595

Colorectal cancer diagnosis improvement project evaluation demonstrates the importance of using multiple measures to track progress toward timeliness goals.

Melissa R Partin1, Adam A Powell, Sean Nugent, Diana L Ordin.   

Abstract

Using data from an improvement collaborative, we examined whether facility-specific conclusions regarding the success of efforts to improve timely access could vary depending on the type of measure used. The sample was drawn from 21 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical facilities participating in a collaborative on timely diagnostic evaluation following positive fecal occult blood tests (FOBT+). We identified FOBT+ cases from participating facilities between September 2004 and August 2005 (precollaborative), and September 2006-August 2007 (postcollaborative). Dates of FOBT+ results, colonoscopy, and death were extracted from VHA medical records. We estimated the cumulative proportion receiving colonoscopy within 2 months of the FOBT+ (target measure established by collaborative), and compared facility-specific results regarding improvement on this measure to results from measures of the cumulative proportion receiving colonoscopy within 12 months, and average time-to-colonoscopy. In 12 facilities (57%), all measures suggested consistent results regarding pre-post collaborative changes in colonoscopy rates. In four facilities (19%), the target measure suggested less favorable change, and in five (24%), more favorable change than one or both other measures. Because conclusions drawn about the success of QI efforts can vary by the measure used, multiple measures should be employed to track progress toward timeliness goals.
© 2011 National Association for Healthcare Quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22192595     DOI: 10.1111/j.1945-1474.2011.00188.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Healthc Qual        ISSN: 1062-2551            Impact factor:   1.095


  4 in total

1.  Race/Ethnicity and Adoption of a Population Health Management Approach to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Community-Based Healthcare System.

Authors:  Shivan J Mehta; Christopher D Jensen; Virginia P Quinn; Joanne E Schottinger; Ann G Zauber; Reinier Meester; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Stacey Fedewa; Michael Goodman; Robert H Fletcher; Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley; Chyke A Doubeni
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Follow-Up of Abnormal Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening by Race/Ethnicity.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Jane J Kim; Elisabeth F Beaber; Yingye Zheng; Andrea Burnett-Hartman; Jessica Chubak; Nirupa R Ghai; Dale McLerran; Nancy Breen; Emily F Conant; Berta M Geller; Beverly B Green; Carrie N Klabunde; Stephen Inrig; Celette Sugg Skinner; Virginia P Quinn; Jennifer S Haas; Mitchell Schnall; Carolyn M Rutter; William E Barlow; Douglas A Corley; Katrina Armstrong; Chyke A Doubeni
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  An examination of racial differences in process and outcome of colorectal cancer care quality among users of the veterans affairs health care system.

Authors:  Leah L Zullig; George L Jackson; Morris Weinberger; Dawn Provenzale; Bryce B Reeve; William R Carpenter
Journal:  Clin Colorectal Cancer       Date:  2013-08-27       Impact factor: 4.481

4.  Time to Follow-up After Colorectal Cancer Screening by Health Insurance Type.

Authors:  Nancy Breen; Celette Sugg Skinner; Yingye Zheng; Stephen Inrig; Douglas A Corley; Elisabeth F Beaber; Mike Garcia; Jessica Chubak; Chyke Doubeni; Virginia P Quinn; Jennifer S Haas; Christopher I Li; Karen J Wernli; Carrie N Klabunde
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 5.043

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.