BACKGROUND: Lung cancer remains a major disease burden in Victoria (Australia) and requires a complex and multidisciplinary approach to ensure optimal care and outcomes. To date, no uniform mechanism is available to capture standardized population-based outcomes and thereby provide benchmarking. The establishment of such a data platform is, therefore, a primary requisite to enable description of process and outcome in lung cancer care and to drive improvement in the quality of care provided to individuals with lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A disease quality registry pilot has been established to capture prospective data on all adult patients with clinical or tissue diagnoses of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer. Steering and management committees provide clinical governance and supervise quality indicator selection. Quality indicators were selected following extensive literature review and evaluation of established clinical practice guidelines. A minimum dataset has been established and training and data capture by data collectors is facilitated using a web-based portal. Case ascertainment is established by regular institutional reporting of ICD-10 discharge coding. Recruitment is optimized by provision of opt-out consent. RESULTS: The collection of a standardized minimum data set optimizes capacity for harmonized population-based data capture. Data collection has commenced in a variety of settings reflecting metropolitan and rural, and public, and private health care institutions. The data set provides scope for the construction of a risk-adjusted model for outcomes. A data access policy and a mechanism for escalation policy for outcome outliers has been established. CONCLUSIONS: The Victorian Lung Cancer Registry provides a unique capacity to provide and confirm quality assessment in lung cancer and to drive improvement in quality of care across multidisciplinary stakeholders.
BACKGROUND:Lung cancer remains a major disease burden in Victoria (Australia) and requires a complex and multidisciplinary approach to ensure optimal care and outcomes. To date, no uniform mechanism is available to capture standardized population-based outcomes and thereby provide benchmarking. The establishment of such a data platform is, therefore, a primary requisite to enable description of process and outcome in lung cancer care and to drive improvement in the quality of care provided to individuals with lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A disease quality registry pilot has been established to capture prospective data on all adult patients with clinical or tissue diagnoses of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer. Steering and management committees provide clinical governance and supervise quality indicator selection. Quality indicators were selected following extensive literature review and evaluation of established clinical practice guidelines. A minimum dataset has been established and training and data capture by data collectors is facilitated using a web-based portal. Case ascertainment is established by regular institutional reporting of ICD-10 discharge coding. Recruitment is optimized by provision of opt-out consent. RESULTS: The collection of a standardized minimum data set optimizes capacity for harmonized population-based data capture. Data collection has commenced in a variety of settings reflecting metropolitan and rural, and public, and private health care institutions. The data set provides scope for the construction of a risk-adjusted model for outcomes. A data access policy and a mechanism for escalation policy for outcome outliers has been established. CONCLUSIONS: The Victorian Lung Cancer Registry provides a unique capacity to provide and confirm quality assessment in lung cancer and to drive improvement in quality of care across multidisciplinary stakeholders.
Authors: Jean-Pierre Pignon; Hélène Tribodet; Giorgio V Scagliotti; Jean-Yves Douillard; Frances A Shepherd; Richard J Stephens; Ariane Dunant; Valter Torri; Rafael Rosell; Lesley Seymour; Stephen G Spiro; Estelle Rolland; Roldano Fossati; Delphine Aubert; Keyue Ding; David Waller; Thierry Le Chevalier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael C Cheung; Kara Hamilton; Recinda Sherman; Margaret M Byrne; Dao M Nguyen; Dido Franceschi; Leonidas G Koniaris Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-07-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Gerard A Silvestri; Anne V Gonzalez; Michael A Jantz; Mitchell L Margolis; Michael K Gould; Lynn T Tanoue; Loren J Harris; Frank C Detterbeck Journal: Chest Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: N Corsini; J Fish; I Ramsey; G Sharplin; I Flight; R Damarell; B Wiggins; C Wilson; D Roder; M Eckert Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-04-03 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Natasha Moloczij; Karla Gough; Benjamin Solomon; David Ball; Linda Mileshkin; Mary Duffy; Mei Krishnasamy Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Shantelle Smith; Margaret Brand; Susan Harden; Lisa Briggs; Lillian Leigh; Fraser Brims; Mark Brooke; Vanessa N Brunelli; Collin Chia; Paul Dawkins; Ross Lawrenson; Mary Duffy; Sue Evans; Tracy Leong; Henry Marshall; Dainik Patel; Nick Pavlakis; Jennifer Philip; Nicole Rankin; Nimit Singhal; Emily Stone; Rebecca Tay; Shalini Vinod; Morgan Windsor; Gavin M Wright; David Leong; John Zalcberg; Rob G Stirling Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-08-29 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Marliese Alexander; Rory Wolfe; David Ball; Matthew Conron; Robert G Stirling; Benjamin Solomon; Michael MacManus; Ann Officer; Sameer Karnam; Kate Burbury; Sue M Evans Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 7.640