PURPOSE: A growing set of quality measures is being implemented to evaluate all components of cancer care, from diagnosis through the end of life. We investigated the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) quality measures portfolio. Additionally, we explored the effect of quality measure type on conformance. METHODS: We performed QOPI data collections twice per year from fall 2007 through fall 2010 and spring 2012, using chart review of the Durham Veterans Administration outpatient oncology clinic. We categorized QOPI measures as nontreatment-related supportive care (NTSC), treatment-related supportive care (TSC), diagnostic, or therapeutic. Descriptive statistics and χ(2) were used to compare longitudinal conformance. RESULTS: The majority of QOPI measures in spring 2012 assess processes of chemotherapy treatment (therapeutic, 54.3%; TSC, 8.7%) or diagnostic modalities (19.6%). Measures targeting NTSC are few (17.4%) but increased from three measures in fall 2007 to eight measures in spring 2012. During those 5 years, average conformance to NTSC, TSC, diagnostic, and therapeutic measures was 71.4%, 86.1%, 89.3%, and 75.4%, respectively (P < .001). Within the NTSC measures, emotional well-being and constipation assessment were least documented (41.0% and 46.3%, respectively). In spring 2012, NTSC measure conformance (75.8%) remained significantly lower than diagnostic measure conformance (91.5%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Most QOPI quality measures assess diagnosis or treatment processes of care and not supportive care. Aggregate conformance to the NTSC measures was lower than that of other categories. The differential conformance demonstrates the necessity of standardized documentation methods and quality improvement efforts that remain commensurate with the increasing portfolio of supportive care measures.
PURPOSE: A growing set of quality measures is being implemented to evaluate all components of cancer care, from diagnosis through the end of life. We investigated the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) quality measures portfolio. Additionally, we explored the effect of quality measure type on conformance. METHODS: We performed QOPI data collections twice per year from fall 2007 through fall 2010 and spring 2012, using chart review of the Durham Veterans Administration outpatient oncology clinic. We categorized QOPI measures as nontreatment-related supportive care (NTSC), treatment-related supportive care (TSC), diagnostic, or therapeutic. Descriptive statistics and χ(2) were used to compare longitudinal conformance. RESULTS: The majority of QOPI measures in spring 2012 assess processes of chemotherapy treatment (therapeutic, 54.3%; TSC, 8.7%) or diagnostic modalities (19.6%). Measures targeting NTSC are few (17.4%) but increased from three measures in fall 2007 to eight measures in spring 2012. During those 5 years, average conformance to NTSC, TSC, diagnostic, and therapeutic measures was 71.4%, 86.1%, 89.3%, and 75.4%, respectively (P < .001). Within the NTSC measures, emotional well-being and constipation assessment were least documented (41.0% and 46.3%, respectively). In spring 2012, NTSC measure conformance (75.8%) remained significantly lower than diagnostic measure conformance (91.5%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Most QOPI quality measures assess diagnosis or treatment processes of care and not supportive care. Aggregate conformance to the NTSC measures was lower than that of other categories. The differential conformance demonstrates the necessity of standardized documentation methods and quality improvement efforts that remain commensurate with the increasing portfolio of supportive care measures.
Authors: Michael N Neuss; Christopher E Desch; Kristen K McNiff; Peter D Eisenberg; Dean H Gesme; Joseph O Jacobson; Mohammad Jahanzeb; Jennifer J Padberg; John M Rainey; Jeff J Guo; Joseph V Simone Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-08-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Thomas J Smith; Paul R Helft; David J Debono; Scott R Berry; Dana S Wollins; Daniel M Hayes; Jamie H Von Roenn; Lowell E Schnipper Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Douglas W Blayney; Jane Severson; C Jane Martin; Pamela Kadlubek; Thomas Ruane; Kimberley Harrison Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Douglas W Blayney; Kristen McNiff; David Hanauer; Gretchen Miela; Denise Markstrom; Michael Neuss Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thomas J Smith; Sarah Temin; Erin R Alesi; Amy P Abernethy; Tracy A Balboni; Ethan M Basch; Betty R Ferrell; Matt Loscalzo; Diane E Meier; Judith A Paice; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Mark Somerfield; Ellen Stovall; Jamie H Von Roenn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Julie Bryar Porter; Eben Lloyd Rosenthal; Marcy Winget; Andrea Segura Smith; Sridhar Belavadi Seshadri; Yohan Vetteth; Eileen F Kiamanesh; Amogh Badwe; Ranjana H Advani; Mark K Buyyounouski; Steven Coutre; Frederick Dirbas; Vasu Divi; Oliver Dorigo; Kristen N Ganjoo; Laura J Johnston; Lawrence David Recht; Joseph B Shrager; Eila C Skinner; Susan M Swetter; Brendan C Visser; Douglas W Blayney Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Mary G Reynolds; Andrea M McCollum; Beatrice Nguete; Robert Shongo Lushima; Brett W Petersen Journal: Viruses Date: 2017-12-12 Impact factor: 5.048