Literature DB >> 27278202

National Evaluation of Hospital Performance on the New Commission on Cancer Melanoma Quality Measures.

Christina A Minami1,2,3, Jeffrey D Wayne4, Anthony D Yang1,2,4, Mary C Martini5, Pedram Gerami5,6, Sunandana Chandra7, Timothy M Kuzel7, David P Winchester8, Bryan E Palis8, Karl Y Bilimoria9,10,11,12.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: To increase adherence to cancer management guidelines, the Commission on Cancer (CoC) developed and approved five melanoma quality measures in 2015. Our objectives were to evaluate formally the national performance of these melanoma measures and to examine patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics associated with adherence.
METHODS: From the National Cancer Data Base (2012), patients with invasive, nonmetastatic melanoma were identified. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on the CoC definition for each measure. Patient-level and hospital-level adherence rates were calculated for the five measures. A hospital was deemed "compliant" if it met the CoC standard, which requires 80 % of patients to receive the measure-specific recommended care. Patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics potentially associated with higher likelihood of adherence at the patient-level were estimated using hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models.
RESULTS: A total of 31,598 patients from 1343 hospitals were examined. Patient-level adherence rates varied from 31.6 % (Measure 5: ≥10 axillary lymph nodes removed/examined) to 72.6 % (Measure 1: sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) appropriateness measure). Hospital-level adherence rates, ranged from 19.3 % of hospitals (N = 538 hospitals for Measure 5) to 44.8 % of hospitals (N = 1090 hospitals for Measure 3: completion lymph node dissection after positive SLNB). No hospital-level factors (e.g., teaching status) were consistently associated with better adherence.
CONCLUSIONS: National adherence rates to the five new CoC melanoma quality metrics are low, and most hospitals would not meet the CoC requirement of 80 % adherence. Feedback for performance of these measures to hospitals, decisions support tools, and educational initiatives are needed to improve guideline adherence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27278202     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5302-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  3 in total

1.  Evidence and implementation gaps in management of sentinel node-positive melanoma in the United States.

Authors:  Kristy K Broman; Joshua Richman; Smita Bhatia
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 4.348

2.  Adherence to quality measures improves survival in esophageal cancer in a retrospective cohort study of the national cancer database from 2004 to 2016.

Authors:  Akash Adhia; Joseph Feinglass; Cary Jo Schlick; David Odell
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Evaluation of the Quality of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Delivery for Breast Cancer Care in the United States.

Authors:  Bobby Daly; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Ningqi Hou; Katharine Yao; David J Winchester; Dezheng Huo
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 31.777

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.