William Sohn1, Matthew J Resnick, Sheldon Greenfield, Sherrie H Kaplan, Sharon Phillips, Tatsuki Koyama, Michael Goodman, Ann S Hamilton, Mia Hashibe, Karen E Hoffman, Lisa E Paddock, Antoinette M Stroup, Xiao-Cheng Wu, David F Penson, Daniel A Barocas. 1. *Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN †Center for Health Policy Research ‡Department of Medicine §Health Policy Research Institute, University of California, Irvine, CA ∥Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN ¶Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA #Department of Preventative Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA **Department of Family and Preventive Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT ††Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX ‡‡New Jersey Department of Health, Cancer Epidemiology, Trenton §§Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ ∥∥School of Public Health, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA ¶¶Tennessee Valley Veterans Administration Healthcare System, Nashville, TN.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Quality measures used in pay-for-performance systems are intended to address specific quality goals, such as safety, efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness, equity, and patient-centeredness. Given the small number of narrowly focused measures in prostate cancer care, we sought to determine whether adherence to any of the available payer-driven quality measures influences patient-centered outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL), patient satisfaction, and treatment-related complications. METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study is a population-based, prospective cohort study that enrolled 3708 men with clinically localized prostate cancer during 2011 and 2012, of whom 2601 completed the 1-year survey and underwent complete chart abstraction. Compliance with 6 quality indicators endorsed by national consortia was assessed. Multivariable regression was used to determine the relationship between indicator compliance and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) instrument summary scores, satisfaction scale scores (service satisfaction scale for cancer care), and treatment-related complications. RESULTS: Overall rates of compliance with these quality measures ranged between 64% and 88%. Three of the 6 measures were weakly associated with 1-year sexual function and bowel function scores (β=-4.6, 1.69, and 2.93, respectively; P≤0.05), whereas the remaining measures had no significant relationship with patient-reported HRQOL outcomes. Satisfaction scores and treatment-related complications were not associated with quality measure compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with available nationally endorsed quality indicators, which were designed to incentivize effective and efficient care, was not associated with clinically important changes in patient-centered outcomes (HRQOL, satisfaction, or complications) within 1-year.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Quality measures used in pay-for-performance systems are intended to address specific quality goals, such as safety, efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness, equity, and patient-centeredness. Given the small number of narrowly focused measures in prostate cancer care, we sought to determine whether adherence to any of the available payer-driven quality measures influences patient-centered outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL), patient satisfaction, and treatment-related complications. METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study is a population-based, prospective cohort study that enrolled 3708 men with clinically localized prostate cancer during 2011 and 2012, of whom 2601 completed the 1-year survey and underwent complete chart abstraction. Compliance with 6 quality indicators endorsed by national consortia was assessed. Multivariable regression was used to determine the relationship between indicator compliance and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) instrument summary scores, satisfaction scale scores (service satisfaction scale for cancer care), and treatment-related complications. RESULTS: Overall rates of compliance with these quality measures ranged between 64% and 88%. Three of the 6 measures were weakly associated with 1-year sexual function and bowel function scores (β=-4.6, 1.69, and 2.93, respectively; P≤0.05), whereas the remaining measures had no significant relationship with patient-reported HRQOL outcomes. Satisfaction scores and treatment-related complications were not associated with quality measure compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with available nationally endorsed quality indicators, which were designed to incentivize effective and efficient care, was not associated with clinically important changes in patient-centered outcomes (HRQOL, satisfaction, or complications) within 1-year.
Authors: Mark S Litwin; Sheldon Greenfield; Eric P Elkin; Deborah P Lubeck; Jeanette M Broering; Sherrie H Kaplan Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Daniel A Barocas; Vivien Chen; Matthew Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; John J Graff; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann Hamilton; Karen Hoffman; Sherrie Kaplan; Tatsuki Koyama; Alicia Morgans; Lisa E Paddock; Sharon Phillips; Matthew J Resnick; Antoinette Stroup; Xiao-Cheng Wu; David F Penson Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Davide Gori; Rajendra Dulal; Douglas W Blayney; James D Brooks; Maria P Fantini; Kathryn M McDonald; Tina Hernandez-Boussard Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2018-09-18