OBJECTIVE: Describe the methodology and selection of quality indicators (QI) to be implemented in the EFFECT (EFFectiveness of Endometrial Cancer Treatment) project. EFFECT aims to monitor the variability in Quality of Care (QoC) of uterine cancer in Belgium, to compare the effectiveness of different treatment strategies to improve the QoC and to check the internal validity of the QI to validate the impact of process indicators on outcome. METHODS: A QI list was retrieved from literature, recent guidelines and QI databases. The Belgian Healthcare Knowledge Center methodology was used for the selection process and involved an expert's panel rating the QI on 4 criteria. The resulting scores and further discussion resulted in a final QI list. An online EFFECT module was developed by the Belgian Cancer Registry including the list of variables required for measuring the QI. Three test phases were performed to evaluate the relevance, feasibility and understanding of the variables and to test the compatibility of the dataset. RESULTS: 138 QI were considered for further discussion and 82 QI were eligible for rating. Based on the rating scores and consensus among the expert's panel, 41 QI were considered measurable and relevant. Testing of the data collection enabled optimization of the content and the user-friendliness of the dataset and online module. CONCLUSIONS: This first Belgian initiative for monitoring the QoC of uterine cancer indicates that the previously used QI selection methodology is reproducible for uterine cancer. The QI list could be applied by other research groups for comparison.
OBJECTIVE: Describe the methodology and selection of quality indicators (QI) to be implemented in the EFFECT (EFFectiveness of Endometrial Cancer Treatment) project. EFFECT aims to monitor the variability in Quality of Care (QoC) of uterine cancer in Belgium, to compare the effectiveness of different treatment strategies to improve the QoC and to check the internal validity of the QI to validate the impact of process indicators on outcome. METHODS: A QI list was retrieved from literature, recent guidelines and QI databases. The Belgian Healthcare Knowledge Center methodology was used for the selection process and involved an expert's panel rating the QI on 4 criteria. The resulting scores and further discussion resulted in a final QI list. An online EFFECT module was developed by the Belgian Cancer Registry including the list of variables required for measuring the QI. Three test phases were performed to evaluate the relevance, feasibility and understanding of the variables and to test the compatibility of the dataset. RESULTS: 138 QI were considered for further discussion and 82 QI were eligible for rating. Based on the rating scores and consensus among the expert's panel, 41 QI were considered measurable and relevant. Testing of the data collection enabled optimization of the content and the user-friendliness of the dataset and online module. CONCLUSIONS: This first Belgian initiative for monitoring the QoC of uterine cancer indicates that the previously used QI selection methodology is reproducible for uterine cancer. The QI list could be applied by other research groups for comparison.
Authors: Joren Vanbraband; Nancy Van Damme; Gauthier Bouche; Geert Silversmit; Anke De Geyndt; Eric de Jonge; Gerd Jacomen; Frédéric Goffin; Hannelore Denys; Frédéric Amant Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Miranda W Langendam; Thomas Piggott; Monika Nothacker; Arnav Agarwal; David Armstrong; Tejan Baldeh; Jeffrey Braithwaite; Carolina Castro Martins; Andrea Darzi; Itziar Etxeandia; Ivan Florez; Jan Hoving; Samer G Karam; Thomas Kötter; Joerg J Meerpohl; Reem A Mustafa; Giovanna E U Muti-Schünemann; Philip J van der Wees; Markus Follmann; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 2.655