Literature DB >> 25427336

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

Craig McFadyen1, Sara Lankshear2, Dimitrios Divaris3, Mark Berry4, Amber Hunter2, John Srigley5, Jonathan Irish6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is increased awareness that, to minimize variation in clinician practice and improve quality, performance reporting should be implemented at the provider level. This optimizes physician engagement and creates a sense of professional responsibility for quality and performance measurement at the individual and organizational levels.
METHODS: Individual provider level reporting was implemented within a provincial health region involving 56 clinicians (general surgeons, surgical oncologists, urologists and pathologists). The 2 surgical pathology indicators chosen were colorectal cancer (CRC) lymph node retrieval rate and pT2 prostate cancer margin positivity rate. Surgical resections for all prostate and colorectal cancer performed between Jan. 1, 2011, and Mar. 30, 2012, were included. We used a pre- and postsurvey design to obtain physician perceptions and focus groups with program leadership to determine organizational impact.
RESULTS: Survey results showed that respondents felt the data provided in the reports were valid (67%), consistent with expectations (70%), maintained confidentiality (80%) and were not used in a punitive manner (77%). During the study period the pT2 prostate margin positivity rate decreased from 57.1% to 27.5%. For the CRC lymph node retrieval rate indicator, high baseline performance was maintained.
CONCLUSION: We developed a robust process for providing physicians with confidential, individualized surgical and pathology quality indicator reports. Our results reinforce the importance of individual physician feedback as a strategy for improving and sustaining quality in surgical and diagnostic oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25427336      PMCID: PMC4309762          DOI: 10.1503/cjs.004314

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Surg        ISSN: 0008-428X            Impact factor:   2.089


  21 in total

1.  Reduced lymph node yield in rectal carcinoma specimen after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy has no prognostic relevance.

Authors:  Dietrich Doll; Ralf Gertler; Matthias Maak; Jan Friederichs; Karen Becker; Hans Geinitz; Monika Kriner; Hjalmar Nekarda; Jörg R Siewert; Robert Rosenberg
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 2.  Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study.

Authors:  Mojtaba Vaismoradi; Hannele Turunen; Terese Bondas
Journal:  Nurs Health Sci       Date:  2013-03-11       Impact factor: 1.857

3.  Guideline for optimization of colorectal cancer surgery and pathology.

Authors:  Andrew J Smith; David K Driman; Karen Spithoff; Amber Hunter; Robin S McLeod; Marko Simunovic; Bernard Langer
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-01-01       Impact factor: 3.454

Review 4.  Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review.

Authors:  David A Davis; Paul E Mazmanian; Michael Fordis; R Van Harrison; Kevin E Thorpe; Laure Perrier
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-09-06       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  The challenge of variation in medical practice.

Authors:  B C James; M E Hammond
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 5.534

6.  Neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer down-stages the tumor but reduces lymph node harvest significantly.

Authors:  Ruwan E Wijesuriya; Kemal I Deen; Janaki Hewavisenthi; Jayantha Balawardana; Mahendra Perera
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 7.  Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

Authors:  M A O'Brien; S Rogers; G Jamtvedt; A D Oxman; J Odgaard-Jensen; D T Kristoffersen; L Forsetlund; D Bainbridge; N Freemantle; D A Davis; R B Haynes; E L Harvey
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-10-17

8.  Implementation of the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative at a university comprehensive cancer center.

Authors:  Douglas W Blayney; Kristen McNiff; David Hanauer; Gretchen Miela; Denise Markstrom; Michael Neuss
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-06-01       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Absence of lymph nodes in the resected specimen after radical surgery for distal rectal cancer and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: what does it mean?

Authors:  Angelita Habr-Gama; Rodrigo O Perez; Igor Proscurshim; Viviane Rawet; Diego D Pereira; Afonso H S Sousa; Desiderio Kiss; Ivan Cecconello
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 4.585

10.  Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: a population-based approach.

Authors:  John R Srigley; Tom McGowan; Andrea Maclean; Marilyn Raby; Jillian Ross; Sarah Kramer; Carol Sawka
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-06-15       Impact factor: 3.454

View more
  6 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.  Lymph node retrieval rates in melanoma: a quality assessment parameter.

Authors:  D Berger-Richardson; E Cordeiro; M Ernjakovic; A M Easson
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  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 4.  Clinical performance comparators in audit and feedback: a review of theory and evidence.

Authors:  Wouter T Gude; Benjamin Brown; Sabine N van der Veer; Heather L Colquhoun; Noah M Ivers; Jamie C Brehaut; Zach Landis-Lewis; Christopher J Armitage; Nicolette F de Keizer; Niels Peek
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2019-04-24       Impact factor: 7.327

5.  Physician engagement: a concept analysis.

Authors:  Tyrone A Perreira; Laure Perrier; Melissa Prokopy; Lina Neves-Mera; D David Persaud
Journal:  J Healthc Leadersh       Date:  2019-07-26

6.  Can feedback approaches reduce unwarranted clinical variation? A systematic rapid evidence synthesis.

Authors:  Reema Harrison; Reece Amr Hinchcliff; Elizabeth Manias; Steven Mears; David Heslop; Victoria Walton; Ru Kwedza
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 2.655

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.