Fanny Sampurno1, Jia Zheng1, Lydia Di Stefano1, Jeremy L Millar2, Claire Foster3, Ferran Fuedea4, Celestia Higano5, Hartwig Hulan6, Stephen Mark7, Caroline Moore8, Alison Richardson9, Frank Sullivan10, Neil S Wenger11, Daniela Wittmann12, Sue Evans13. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. William Buckland Radiotherapy Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton, Southampton and Urology, London, United Kingdom. 4. Radiation Oncology Department, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Radiation Oncology, Barcelona University and Radiobiology and Cancer Group, Bellvitge Biochemical Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 6. Martini-Klinik, Prostate Cancer Centre, University Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. 7. Department of Urology, Christchurch Hospital and University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. 8. Division of Surgical and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 9. Cancer Nursing and End of Life Care, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton, Southampton and Urology, London, United Kingdom. 10. Prostate Cancer Institute, National University of Ireland Galway and Department of Radiation Oncology, Galway Clinic, Galway, Ireland. 11. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 12. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 13. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: Sue.Evans@monash.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to develop a core set of clinical indicators to enable international benchmarking of localized prostate cancer management using data available in the TrueNTH Global Registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An international expert panel completed an online survey and participated in a face-to-face meeting. Participants included 3 urologists, 3 radiation oncologists, 2 psychologists, 1 medical oncologist, 1 nurse and 1 epidemiologist with prostate cancer expertise from a total of 7 countries. Current guidelines on prostate cancer treatment and potential quality indicators were identified from a literature review. These potential indicators were refined and developed through a modified Delphi process during which each panelist independently and repeatedly rated each indicator based on importance (satisfying the indicator demonstrated a provision of high quality care) and feasibility (the likelihood that data used to construct the indicator could be collected at a population level). The main outcome measure was items with panel agreement indicated by a disagreement index less 1, median importance 8.5 or greater and median feasibility 9 or greater. RESULTS: The expert panel endorsed 33 indicators. Seven of these 33 prostate cancer quality indicators assessed care relating to diagnosis, 7 assessed primary treatment, 1 assessed salvage treatment and 18 assessed health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a set of quality indicators to measure prostate cancer care using numerous international evidence-based clinical guidelines. These indicators will be pilot tested in the TrueNTH Global Registry. Reports comparing indicator performance will subsequently be distributed to groups at participating sites with the purpose of improving the consistency and quality of prostate cancer management on a global basis.
PURPOSE: We sought to develop a core set of clinical indicators to enable international benchmarking of localized prostate cancer management using data available in the TrueNTH Global Registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An international expert panel completed an online survey and participated in a face-to-face meeting. Participants included 3 urologists, 3 radiation oncologists, 2 psychologists, 1 medical oncologist, 1 nurse and 1 epidemiologist with prostate cancer expertise from a total of 7 countries. Current guidelines on prostate cancer treatment and potential quality indicators were identified from a literature review. These potential indicators were refined and developed through a modified Delphi process during which each panelist independently and repeatedly rated each indicator based on importance (satisfying the indicator demonstrated a provision of high quality care) and feasibility (the likelihood that data used to construct the indicator could be collected at a population level). The main outcome measure was items with panel agreement indicated by a disagreement index less 1, median importance 8.5 or greater and median feasibility 9 or greater. RESULTS: The expert panel endorsed 33 indicators. Seven of these 33 prostate cancer quality indicators assessed care relating to diagnosis, 7 assessed primary treatment, 1 assessed salvage treatment and 18 assessed health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a set of quality indicators to measure prostate cancer care using numerous international evidence-based clinical guidelines. These indicators will be pilot tested in the TrueNTH Global Registry. Reports comparing indicator performance will subsequently be distributed to groups at participating sites with the purpose of improving the consistency and quality of prostate cancer management on a global basis.
Authors: Fanny Sampurno; Christoph Kowalski; Sarah E Connor; Anissa V Nguyen; Àngels Pont Acuña; Chi-Fai Ng; Claire Foster; Günter Feick; Olatz Garin Boronat; Sebastian Dieng; Silvana Brglevska; Stephanie Ferrante; Steven Leung; Paul Villanti; Caroline M Moore; Ian D Graham; Jeremy L Millar; Mark S Litwin; Nathan Papa Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 4.497