OBJECTIVE: To describe a successful quality improvement process that arose from unexpected differences in control groups' short-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within a comparative effectiveness study of a prostate brachytherapy technique intended to reduce urinary morbidity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients planning prostate brachytherapy at one of three institutions were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Patients were surveyed using a validated instrument to assess treatment-related toxicity before treatment and at pre-specified intervals. Unexpectedly, urinary PROs were worse in one of two standard brachytherapy technique control populations (US-BT1 and US-BT2 ). Therefore, we collaboratively reviewed treatment procedures, identified a discrepancy in technique, made a corrective modification, and evaluated the change. RESULTS: The patient groups were demographically and clinically similar. In the first preliminary analysis, US-BT2 patients reported significantly more short-term post-treatment urinary symptoms than US-BT1 patients. The study's treating physicians reviewed the US-BT1 and US-BT2 treatment protocols and found that they differed in whether they used an indwelling urinary catheter. After adopting the US-BT1 approach, short-term urinary morbidity in US-BT2 patients decreased significantly. Brachytherapy procedures were otherwise unchanged. CONCLUSION: Many procedures in cancer treatments are not evaluated, resulting in practice variation and suboptimal outcomes. Patients, the primary medical consumers, provide little direct input in evaluations of their care. We used PROs, a sensitive and valid measure of treatment-related toxicity, for quality assessment and quality improvement (QA/QI) of prostate brachytherapy. This serendipitous patient-centred QA/QI process may be a useful model for empirically evaluating complex cancer treatment procedures and for screening for substandard care.
OBJECTIVE: To describe a successful quality improvement process that arose from unexpected differences in control groups' short-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within a comparative effectiveness study of a prostate brachytherapy technique intended to reduce urinary morbidity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients planning prostate brachytherapy at one of three institutions were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Patients were surveyed using a validated instrument to assess treatment-related toxicity before treatment and at pre-specified intervals. Unexpectedly, urinary PROs were worse in one of two standard brachytherapy technique control populations (US-BT1 and US-BT2 ). Therefore, we collaboratively reviewed treatment procedures, identified a discrepancy in technique, made a corrective modification, and evaluated the change. RESULTS: The patient groups were demographically and clinically similar. In the first preliminary analysis, US-BT2 patients reported significantly more short-term post-treatment urinary symptoms than US-BT1 patients. The study's treating physicians reviewed the US-BT1 and US-BT2 treatment protocols and found that they differed in whether they used an indwelling urinary catheter. After adopting the US-BT1 approach, short-term urinary morbidity in US-BT2 patients decreased significantly. Brachytherapy procedures were otherwise unchanged. CONCLUSION: Many procedures in cancer treatments are not evaluated, resulting in practice variation and suboptimal outcomes. Patients, the primary medical consumers, provide little direct input in evaluations of their care. We used PROs, a sensitive and valid measure of treatment-related toxicity, for quality assessment and quality improvement (QA/QI) of prostate brachytherapy. This serendipitous patient-centred QA/QI process may be a useful model for empirically evaluating complex cancer treatment procedures and for screening for substandard care.