S R Khare1, G Batist2, G Bartlett1. 1. Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC; 2. Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, and Rossy Cancer Network, McGill University, Montreal, QC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer quality indicators have previously been described for a single tumour site or a single treatment modality, or according to distinct data sources. Our objective was to identify cancer quality indicators across all treatment modalities specific to breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer. METHODS: Candidate indicators for each tumour site were extracted from the relevant literature and rated in a modified Delphi approach by multidisciplinary groups of expert clinicians from 3 clinical cancer programs. All rating rounds were conducted by e-mail, except for one that was conducted as a face-to-face expert panel meeting, thus modifying the original Delphi technique. Four high-level indicators were chosen for immediate data collection. A list of confounding variables was also constructed in a separate literature review. RESULTS: A total of 156 candidate indicators were identified for breast cancer, 68 for colorectal cancer, 40 for lung cancer, and 43 for prostate cancer. Iterative rounds of ratings led to a final list of 20 evidence- and consensus-based indicators each for colorectal and lung cancer, and 19 each for breast and prostate cancer. Approximately 30 clinicians participated in the selection of the breast, lung, and prostate indicators; approximately 50 clinicians participated in the selection of the colorectal indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The modified Delphi approach that incorporates an in-person meeting of expert clinicians is an effective and efficient method for performance indicator selection and offers the added benefit of optimal clinician engagement. The finalized indicator lists for each tumour site, together with salient confounding variables, can be directly adopted (or adapted) for deployment within a performance improvement program.
BACKGROUND:Cancer quality indicators have previously been described for a single tumour site or a single treatment modality, or according to distinct data sources. Our objective was to identify cancer quality indicators across all treatment modalities specific to breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer. METHODS: Candidate indicators for each tumour site were extracted from the relevant literature and rated in a modified Delphi approach by multidisciplinary groups of expert clinicians from 3 clinical cancer programs. All rating rounds were conducted by e-mail, except for one that was conducted as a face-to-face expert panel meeting, thus modifying the original Delphi technique. Four high-level indicators were chosen for immediate data collection. A list of confounding variables was also constructed in a separate literature review. RESULTS: A total of 156 candidate indicators were identified for breast cancer, 68 for colorectal cancer, 40 for lung cancer, and 43 for prostate cancer. Iterative rounds of ratings led to a final list of 20 evidence- and consensus-based indicators each for colorectal and lung cancer, and 19 each for breast and prostate cancer. Approximately 30 clinicians participated in the selection of the breast, lung, and prostate indicators; approximately 50 clinicians participated in the selection of the colorectal indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The modified Delphi approach that incorporates an in-person meeting of expert clinicians is an effective and efficient method for performance indicator selection and offers the added benefit of optimal clinician engagement. The finalized indicator lists for each tumour site, together with salient confounding variables, can be directly adopted (or adapted) for deployment within a performance improvement program.
Entities:
Keywords:
Performance measures; health care quality assessment; quality improvement; quality indicators; quality of cancer care
Authors: Eric C Schneider; Jennifer L Malin; Katherine L Kahn; Ezekiel J Emanuel; Arnold M Epstein Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Katherine Watkins; Marcela Horvitz-Lennon; Leah Barnes Caldarone; Lisa R Shugarman; Brad Smith; Thomas E Mannle; Daniel R Kivlahan; Harold Alan Pincus Journal: J Healthc Qual Date: 2011 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.095
Authors: Omar Al Zahrani; Ismail Ghorbel; Osama Mukhtar; Muneera Almajed; Hoda M Abdelazim; Muhammad N Hasan; Ahmad Mostafa; Aisha A Al Harbi; Ali Bajouda Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 1.422
Authors: Braden Woodhouse; Sharon Pattison; Eva Segelov; Simron Singh; Kate Parker; Grace Kong; William Macdonald; David Wyld; Goswin Meyer-Rochow; Nick Pavlakis; Siobhan Conroy; Vallerie Gordon; Jonathan Koea; Nicole Kramer; Michael Michael; Kate Wakelin; Tehmina Asif; Dorothy Lo; Timothy Price; Ben Lawrence Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 4.241