Sydney M Dy1, Anne M Walling2, Jennifer W Mack2, Jennifer L Malin2, Philip Pantoja2, Karl A Lorenz2, Diana M Tisnado2. 1. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; University of California, Los Angeles; Veterans Health Administration of Greater Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA sdy@jhsph.edu. 2. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; University of California, Los Angeles; Veterans Health Administration of Greater Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient-reported data may provide valuable information for oncology quality measurement. We evaluated applying patient-reported data from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium national study to quality indicators addressing supportive oncology domains. METHODS: We analyzed surveys including validated instruments for symptoms and care planning from 4,174 patients newly diagnosed with lung or colorectal cancer. We adapted existing supportive oncology indicators for use with patient-reported data from Cancer Quality-ASSIST and the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. Where feasible, we examined indicators using medical record data for comparison purposes. RESULTS: Using patient-reported data, the percentage of patients meeting indicator criteria for screening ranged from 74% (significant depressive symptoms) to 93% (pain, nausea/vomiting). The percentage meeting indicator criteria for symptom treatment ranged from 73% (significant depressive symptoms) to 99% (nausea/vomiting). Symptom severity did not affect the results. Using medical record data, the percentage meeting indicator criteria varied between 4% (significant depressive symptoms) and 23% (pain). For information and care planning, 44% met criteria for discussion about resuscitation and 32% for hospice discussion using survey data. Using medical record data, 11% met criteria for goals-of-care discussion in intensive care and 46% for hospice/pain management/palliative care referral before death. CONCLUSION: Quality of care for symptoms measured using patient self-report was higher than when including medical record data. Use of patient-reported and medical record data allowed measurement of different perspectives on care planning indicators. Patient-reported data provide a complementary, patient-centered perspective on the quality of supportive oncology care.
PURPOSE: Patient-reported data may provide valuable information for oncology quality measurement. We evaluated applying patient-reported data from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium national study to quality indicators addressing supportive oncology domains. METHODS: We analyzed surveys including validated instruments for symptoms and care planning from 4,174 patients newly diagnosed with lung or colorectal cancer. We adapted existing supportive oncology indicators for use with patient-reported data from Cancer Quality-ASSIST and the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. Where feasible, we examined indicators using medical record data for comparison purposes. RESULTS: Using patient-reported data, the percentage of patients meeting indicator criteria for screening ranged from 74% (significant depressive symptoms) to 93% (pain, nausea/vomiting). The percentage meeting indicator criteria for symptom treatment ranged from 73% (significant depressive symptoms) to 99% (nausea/vomiting). Symptom severity did not affect the results. Using medical record data, the percentage meeting indicator criteria varied between 4% (significant depressive symptoms) and 23% (pain). For information and care planning, 44% met criteria for discussion about resuscitation and 32% for hospice discussion using survey data. Using medical record data, 11% met criteria for goals-of-care discussion in intensive care and 46% for hospice/pain management/palliative care referral before death. CONCLUSION: Quality of care for symptoms measured using patient self-report was higher than when including medical record data. Use of patient-reported and medical record data allowed measurement of different perspectives on care planning indicators. Patient-reported data provide a complementary, patient-centered perspective on the quality of supportive oncology care.
Authors: John Z Ayanian; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Robert H Fletcher; Mona N Fouad; David P Harrington; Katherine L Kahn; Catarina I Kiefe; Joseph Lipscomb; Jennifer L Malin; Arnold L Potosky; Dawn T Provenzale; Robert S Sandler; Michelle van Ryn; Robert B Wallace; Jane C Weeks; Dee W West Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Francis X Campion; Leanne R Larson; Pamela J Kadlubek; Craig C Earle; Michael N Neuss Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Jennifer L Malin; Sean M O'Neill; Steven M Asch; Sydney M Dy; Anne M Walling; Diana Tisnado; Anna Liza Antonio; Karl A Lorenz Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Sydney M Dy; Karl A Lorenz; Sean M O'Neill; Steven M Asch; Anne M Walling; Diana Tisnado; Anna Liza Antonio; Jennifer L Malin Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Karl A Lorenz; Sydney M Dy; Arash Naeim; Anne M Walling; Homayoon Sanati; Patricia Smith; Roberta Shanman; Carol P Roth; Steven M Asch Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2009-04-08 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Anne M Walling; Jane C Weeks; Katherine L Kahn; Diana Tisnado; Nancy L Keating; Sydney M Dy; Neeraj K Arora; Jennifer W Mack; Philip M Pantoja; Jennifer L Malin Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Marco Mazzotta; Marco Filetti; Marta Piras; Sebastiano Mercadante; Paolo Marchetti; Raffaele Giusti Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 3.989