BACKGROUND: The shift toward value-based care in the United States emphasizes the role of quality measures in payment models. Many diseases, such as prostate cancer, have a proliferation of quality measures, resulting in resource burden and physician burnout. This study aimed to identify and summarize proposed prostate cancer quality measures and describe their frequency and use in peer-reviewed literature. METHODS: The PubMed database was used to identify quality measures relevant to prostate cancer care, and included articles in English through April 2018. A gray literature search for other documents was also conducted. After the selection process of the pertinent articles, measure characteristics were abstracted, and uses were summarized for the 10 most frequently utilized measures in the literature. RESULTS: A total of 26 articles were identified for review. Of the 71 proposed prostate cancer quality measures, only 47 were used, and less than 10% of these were endorsed by the National Quality Forum. Process measures were most frequently reported (84.5%). Only 6 outcome measures (8.5%) were proposed-none of which were among the most frequently utilized. CONCLUSION: Although a high number of proposed prostate cancer quality measures are reported in the literature, few were assessed, and the majority of these were non-endorsed process measures. Process measures were most commonly assessed; outcome measures were rarely evaluated. In a step to close the quality chasm, a "top 5" core set of quality measures for prostate cancer care, including structure, process, and outcomes measures, is suggested. Future studies should consider this comprehensive set of quality measures.
BACKGROUND: The shift toward value-based care in the United States emphasizes the role of quality measures in payment models. Many diseases, such as prostate cancer, have a proliferation of quality measures, resulting in resource burden and physician burnout. This study aimed to identify and summarize proposed prostate cancer quality measures and describe their frequency and use in peer-reviewed literature. METHODS: The PubMed database was used to identify quality measures relevant to prostate cancer care, and included articles in English through April 2018. A gray literature search for other documents was also conducted. After the selection process of the pertinent articles, measure characteristics were abstracted, and uses were summarized for the 10 most frequently utilized measures in the literature. RESULTS: A total of 26 articles were identified for review. Of the 71 proposed prostate cancer quality measures, only 47 were used, and less than 10% of these were endorsed by the National Quality Forum. Process measures were most frequently reported (84.5%). Only 6 outcome measures (8.5%) were proposed-none of which were among the most frequently utilized. CONCLUSION: Although a high number of proposed prostate cancer quality measures are reported in the literature, few were assessed, and the majority of these were non-endorsed process measures. Process measures were most commonly assessed; outcome measures were rarely evaluated. In a step to close the quality chasm, a "top 5" core set of quality measures for prostate cancer care, including structure, process, and outcomes measures, is suggested. Future studies should consider this comprehensive set of quality measures.
Authors: John T Wei; Rodney L Dunn; Howard M Sandler; P William McLaughlin; James E Montie; Mark S Litwin; Linda Nyquist; Martin G Sanda Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David F Penson; Dale McLerran; Ziding Feng; Lin Li; Peter C Albertsen; Frank D Gilliland; Ann Hamilton; Richard M Hoffman; Robert A Stephenson; Arnold L Potosky; Janet L Stanford Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Brian S Flynn; Marie E Wood; Takamaru Ashikaga; Alan Stockdale; Greg S Dana; Shelly Naud Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Justin E Bekelman; Michael J Zelefsky; Thomas L Jang; Ethan M Basch; Deborah Schrag Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-08-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David C Miller; Benjamin A Spencer; Jamie Ritchey; Andrew K Stewart; Rodney L Dunn; Howard M Sandler; John T Wei; Mark S Litwin Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Selen Bozkurt; Jung In Park; Kathleen Mary Kan; Michelle Ferrari; Daniel L Rubin; James D Brooks; Tina Hernandez-Boussard Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Jean Coquet; Selen Bozkurt; Kathleen M Kan; Michelle K Ferrari; Douglas W Blayney; James D Brooks; Tina Hernandez-Boussard Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2019-04-20 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Jennifer M Joseph; Davide Gori; Catherine Curtin; Jennifer Hah; Vy Thuy Ho; Steven M Asch; Tina Hernandez-Boussard Journal: Surgery Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Selen Bozkurt; Kathleen M Kan; Michelle K Ferrari; Daniel L Rubin; Douglas W Blayney; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; James D Brooks Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 2.692