Ellie Tsiamis1, Jeremy Millar2, Siddhartha Baxi3, Martin Borg4, Paolo De Ieso5, Hany Elsaleh6, Farshad Foroudi7, Braden Higgs8, Tanya Holt9, Jarad Martin10, Kim Moretti11, David Pryor12, Marketa Skala13, Sue Evans14. 1. Department of Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: ellie.tsiamis@monash.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; The Alfred, Radiation Oncology, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: Jeremy.Millar@monash.edu. 3. Genesis Cancer Care Burnbury, Australia. Electronic address: siddhartha.baxi@genesiscancercare.com.au. 4. Adelaide Radiotherapy Centre, Australia. Electronic address: martin.borg@adradcentre.com.au. 5. Northern Territory Radiation Oncology, Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre, Australia. Electronic address: Paolo.DeIeso@nt.gov.au. 6. The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Electronic address: hany.elsaleh@act.gov.au. 7. Olivia Newton John Cancer Research and Wellness Centre, Heidelberg, Australia. Electronic address: farshad.foroudi@austin.org.au. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Australia. Electronic address: braden.higgs@sa.gov.au. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Australia. Electronic address: Tanya.Holt@health.qld.gov.au. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Australia. Electronic address: Jarad.Martin@calvarymater.org.au. 11. School of Population Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. Electronic address: kim@theurologist.net.au. 12. APCRC-Q, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: david.pryor@health.qld.gov.au. 13. W P Holman Clinic, Launceston, Australia. Electronic address: marketa.Skala@dhhs.tas.gov.au. 14. Department of Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: sue.evans@monsh.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quality indicators (QIs) have been developed for many aspects of prostate cancer care, but are under-developed with regard to radiotherapy treatment. We aimed to develop a valid, relevant and feasible set of core QIs to measure quality of radiotherapy care in men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a RAND-modified Delphi process to select QIs that were regarded as both important and feasible measures of quality radiotherapy care. This involved two phases: (1) a literature review to identify a list of proposed QIs; and (2) a QI selection process by an expert panel (n = 12) conducted in a series of three rounds: two online questionnaires' and one face-to-face meeting. The RAND criterion identified variation in ratings and determined the level of agreement after each round of voting. RESULTS: A total of 144 candidate QIs, which included measures from pre-treatment to post-treatment and survivorship care were identified. After three rounds of voting, the panel approved a comprehensive set of 17 QIs, with most assessing a process of care (n = 16, 94.1%) and the remaining assessing a health outcome. CONCLUSION: This study developed a core set of 17 QIs which will be used to report from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Australia & New Zealand, to monitor the quality of radiotherapy care prostate cancer patients receive.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quality indicators (QIs) have been developed for many aspects of prostate cancer care, but are under-developed with regard to radiotherapy treatment. We aimed to develop a valid, relevant and feasible set of core QIs to measure quality of radiotherapy care in men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a RAND-modified Delphi process to select QIs that were regarded as both important and feasible measures of quality radiotherapy care. This involved two phases: (1) a literature review to identify a list of proposed QIs; and (2) a QI selection process by an expert panel (n = 12) conducted in a series of three rounds: two online questionnaires' and one face-to-face meeting. The RAND criterion identified variation in ratings and determined the level of agreement after each round of voting. RESULTS: A total of 144 candidate QIs, which included measures from pre-treatment to post-treatment and survivorship care were identified. After three rounds of voting, the panel approved a comprehensive set of 17 QIs, with most assessing a process of care (n = 16, 94.1%) and the remaining assessing a health outcome. CONCLUSION: This study developed a core set of 17 QIs which will be used to report from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Australia & New Zealand, to monitor the quality of radiotherapy care prostate cancerpatients receive.
Authors: Peter K F Chiu; Eric K C Lee; Marco T Y Chan; Wilson H C Chan; M H Cheung; Martin H C Lam; Edmond S K Ma; Darren M C Poon Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: David I Pryor; Jarad M Martin; Jeremy L Millar; Heather Day; Wee Loon Ong; Marketa Skala; Liesel M FitzGerald; Benjamin Hindson; Braden Higgs; Michael E O'Callaghan; Farhan Syed; Amy J Hayden; Sandra L Turner; Nathan Papa Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-11-01