Literature DB >> 23943888

Closing the quality loop: facilitating improvement in oncology practice through timely access to clinical performance indicators.

John Srigley1, Sara Lankshear, James Brierley, Thomas McGowan, Dimitrios Divaris, Marta Yurcan, Robin Rossi, Tim Yardley, Mary Jane King, Jillian Ross, Jonathan Irish, Robin McLeod, Carol Sawka.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Health care organizations and professionals are being called on to develop clear and transparent measures of quality and to demonstrate the application of the data to performance improvement at the system and provider levels.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) initiated a pathology reporting project aimed at improving the quality of cancer pathology by standardizing the content, format, and transmission of reports to a central registry and enabling the information to be available for planning, quality measurement, and quality improvement. This population-based quality-improvement project involved more than 400 Ontario pathologists and more than 100 hospitals. Clinically relevant quality indicators that used the newly available data were developed and shared. Synoptic pathology data were electronically captured at the point of report development and used to automate the timely generation of clinical performance indicators that support quality improvement in surgical oncology. These reports provided comparison data at the organizational, regional, and population levels.
RESULTS: Monthly quality indicator reports are generated and distributed to each cancer center and are used to generate dialogue at the professional, organizational, and regional levels regarding evidence-informed quality-improvement opportunities. Since the launch of the project, colorectal lymph node retrieval rates have increased from 76% to 87%, and pT2 prostatectomy margin positivity rates have decreased from 37% to 21%.
CONCLUSION: High-quality, complete cancer pathology reports are important not only for contemporary oncological practice, but also for secondary users of pathology information including tumor registries, health planners, epidemiologists, and others involved in quality-improvement activities and research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23943888     DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2012.000818

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oncol Pract        ISSN: 1554-7477            Impact factor:   3.840


  17 in total

Review 1.  Does standardised structured reporting contribute to quality in diagnostic pathology? The importance of evidence-based datasets.

Authors:  D W Ellis; J Srigley
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Physician level reporting of surgical and pathology performance indicators: a regional study to assess feasibility and impact on quality.

Authors:  Craig McFadyen; Sara Lankshear; Dimitrios Divaris; Mark Berry; Amber Hunter; John Srigley; Jonathan Irish
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.089

3.  An international survey-based study on colorectal cancer pathology reporting-guidelines versus local practice.

Authors:  Maria Urbanowicz; Heike I Grabsch; Frederic Fiteni; Yan Liu; Carmela Caballero; Jean-François Fléjou
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2018-09-26       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  Automating the Capture of Structured Pathology Data for Prostate Cancer Clinical Care and Research.

Authors:  Anobel Y Odisho; Mark Bridge; Mitchell Webb; Niloufar Ameli; Renu S Eapen; Frank Stauf; Janet E Cowan; Samuel L Washington; Annika Herlemann; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2019-07

5.  College of American Pathologists Cancer Protocols: From Optimizing Cancer Patient Care to Facilitating Interoperable Reporting and Downstream Data Use.

Authors:  Vanda F Torous; Ross W Simpson; Jyoti P Balani; Alexander S Baras; Michael A Berman; George G Birdsong; Giovanna A Giannico; Gladell P Paner; Jason R Pettus; Zack Sessions; S Joseph Sirintrapun; John R Srigley; Samantha Spencer
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2021-01

Review 6.  Data set for the reporting of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: explanations and recommendations of the guidelines from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting.

Authors:  Lester D R Thompson; Anthony J Gill; Sylvia L Asa; Roderick J Clifton-Bligh; Ronald R de Krijger; Noriko Kimura; Paul Komminoth; Ernest E Lack; Jacques W M Lenders; Ricardo V Lloyd; Thomas G Papathomas; Peter M Sadow; Arthur S Tischler
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 3.466

Review 7.  Guidance for laboratories performing molecular pathology for cancer patients.

Authors:  Ian A Cree; Zandra Deans; Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg; Nicola Normanno; Anders Edsjö; Etienne Rouleau; Francesc Solé; Erik Thunnissen; Wim Timens; Ed Schuuring; Elisabeth Dequeker; Samuel Murray; Manfred Dietel; Patricia Groenen; J Han Van Krieken
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 8.  The effects of implementing synoptic pathology reporting in cancer diagnosis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Caro E Sluijter; Luc R C W van Lonkhuijzen; Henk-Jan van Slooten; Iris D Nagtegaal; Lucy I H Overbeek
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 4.064

9.  Can the completeness of radiological cancer staging reports be improved using proforma reporting? A prospective multicentre non-blinded interventional study across 21 centres in the UK.

Authors:  Anisha Patel; Andrea Rockall; Ashley Guthrie; Fergus Gleeson; Sylvia Worthy; Sisa Grubnic; David Burling; Clare Allen; Anwar Padhani; Brendan Carey; Peter Cavanagh; Michael D Peake; Gina Brown
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-10-02       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Extraction and analysis of discrete synoptic pathology report data using R.

Authors:  Alexander Boag
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2015-11-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.