Craig McFadyen1, Sara Lankshear2, Dimitrios Divaris3, Mark Berry4, Amber Hunter2, John Srigley5, Jonathan Irish6. 1. Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ont. and Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ont. 2. Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ont. 3. Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ont. and Grand River Hospital, Kitchener, Ont. 4. Grand River Hospital, Kitchener, Ont. 5. Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ont. 6. Cancer Care Ontario, and Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ont.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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