BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to measure adherence rates to guideline-recommended process measures in patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS: A total of 5720 patients who underwent surgery for head and neck cancer in Ontario between 1993 and 2010 were identified from administrative databases. Adherence to 4 guideline-recommended processes of care was measured and stratified by hospital and physician case volume. RESULTS: Seventy-two percent of patients received preoperative head and neck imaging, 83% received preoperative chest imaging, 58% received preoperative multidisciplinary consultation, and 77% had appropriate follow-up visits. Higher surgeon and hospital surgical volumes were associated with higher adherence rates. CONCLUSION: Adherence rates to guideline-recommended processes of care in the surgical management of patients with head and neck cancer in Ontario were moderate and should be improved. Although adherence rates seem proportional to surgical volume, even the highest volume centers have room to improve.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to measure adherence rates to guideline-recommended process measures in patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS: A total of 5720 patients who underwent surgery for head and neck cancer in Ontario between 1993 and 2010 were identified from administrative databases. Adherence to 4 guideline-recommended processes of care was measured and stratified by hospital and physician case volume. RESULTS: Seventy-two percent of patients received preoperative head and neck imaging, 83% received preoperative chest imaging, 58% received preoperative multidisciplinary consultation, and 77% had appropriate follow-up visits. Higher surgeon and hospital surgical volumes were associated with higher adherence rates. CONCLUSION: Adherence rates to guideline-recommended processes of care in the surgical management of patients with head and neck cancer in Ontario were moderate and should be improved. Although adherence rates seem proportional to surgical volume, even the highest volume centers have room to improve.
Authors: Evan M Graboyes; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Mark A Ellis; Anand K Sharma; Amy E Wahlquist; Eric J Lentsch; Brian Nussenbaum; Terry A Day Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ramez Philips; Daniel Martin; Antoine Eskander; Jeffrey Schord; Nicole Brown; Songzhu Zhao; Guy Brock; Bhavna Kumar; Ricardo Carrau; Enver Ozer; Amit Agrawal; Stephen Y Kang; James W Rocco; David Schuller; Syed Ali; Dukagjin Blakaj; Aashish Bhatt; John Grecula; Theodoros Teknos; Virginia Diavolitsis; Matthew Old Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2018-01-20 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Christine G Gourin; C Matthew Stewart; Kevin D Frick; Carole Fakhry; Karen T Pitman; David W Eisele; J Matthew Austin Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: A Andreano; M Ansarin; D Alterio; R Bruschini; M G Valsecchi; A G Russo Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.124
Authors: Antoine Eskander; Axel Sahovaler; Jennifer Shin; Konrado Deutsch; Matthew Crowson; Neerav Goyal; David L Witsell; Kristine Schulz; Neil D Gross; Randal Weber; Samir S Khariwala; Seth Cohen; Derek Walter CyrLee; Vikas Mehta Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Avery B Nathens; Antoine Eskander; David Forner; Christopher W Noel; Matthew P Guttman; Barbara Haas; Danny Enepekides; Matthew H Rigby; S Mark Taylor Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 2.374