France Vrijens1, Cindy De Gendt2, Leen Verleye1, Jo Robays1, Viki Schillemans2, Cécile Camberlin1, Sabine Stordeur1, Cécile Dubois1, Elisabeth Van Eycken2, Isabelle Wauters3, Jan P Van Meerbeeck4,5. 1. KCE-Belgian Healthcare Knowledge Centre, Centre Administratif Botanique, Doorbuilding (10th floor)-Boulevard du Jardin Botanique 55, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. 2. Belgian Cancer Registry, Koningsstraat 215 bus 7, 1210 Brussels, Belgium. 3. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Respiratory Oncology Unit, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. 4. Center for Oncological Research, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium. 5. Thoracic Oncology, Antwerp University Hospital, Wilrijkstraat 10, 2650 Edegem, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of care for all patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Belgium based on a set of evidence-based quality indicators and to study the variability of care between hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective study based on linked data from the cancer registry, insurance claims and vital status for all patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2010 and 2011. Evidence-based quality indicators were identified from a systematic literature search. A specific algorithm to attribute patients to a centre was developed, and funnel plots were used to assess variability of care between centres. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The proportion of patients who received appropriate care as defined by the indicator. Secondary outcome included the variability of care between centres. RESULTS: Twenty indicators were measured for a total of 12 839 patients. Good results were achieved for 60-day post-surgical mortality (3.9%), histopathological confirmation of diagnosis (93%) and for the use of PET-CT before treatment with curative intent (94%). Areas to be improved include the reporting of staging information to the Belgian Cancer Registry (80%), the use of brain imaging for clinical stage III patients eligible for curative treatment (79%), and the time between diagnosis and start of first active treatment (median 20 days). High variability between centres was observed for several indicators. Twenty-three indicators were found relevant but could not be measured. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the feasibility to develop a multidisciplinary set of quality indicators using population-based data. The main advantage of this approach is that not additional registration is required, but the non-measurability of many relevant indicators is a hamper. It allows however to easily point to areas of large variability in care.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of care for all patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Belgium based on a set of evidence-based quality indicators and to study the variability of care between hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective study based on linked data from the cancer registry, insurance claims and vital status for all patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2010 and 2011. Evidence-based quality indicators were identified from a systematic literature search. A specific algorithm to attribute patients to a centre was developed, and funnel plots were used to assess variability of care between centres. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The proportion of patients who received appropriate care as defined by the indicator. Secondary outcome included the variability of care between centres. RESULTS: Twenty indicators were measured for a total of 12 839 patients. Good results were achieved for 60-day post-surgical mortality (3.9%), histopathological confirmation of diagnosis (93%) and for the use of PET-CT before treatment with curative intent (94%). Areas to be improved include the reporting of staging information to the Belgian Cancer Registry (80%), the use of brain imaging for clinical stage III patients eligible for curative treatment (79%), and the time between diagnosis and start of first active treatment (median 20 days). High variability between centres was observed for several indicators. Twenty-three indicators were found relevant but could not be measured. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the feasibility to develop a multidisciplinary set of quality indicators using population-based data. The main advantage of this approach is that not additional registration is required, but the non-measurability of many relevant indicators is a hamper. It allows however to easily point to areas of large variability in care.