Lawrence N Shulman1,2, Amanda E Browner3, Bryan E Palis3, Katherine Mallin3, Sumedh Kakade4, Ned Carp3,4, Ryan McCabe3, David Winchester3, Sandra L Wong3,5, Daniel P McKellar3,6. 1. Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Lawrence.shulman@uphs.upenn.edu. 2. American College of Surgeons, Commission on Cancer, Chicago, IL, USA. Lawrence.shulman@uphs.upenn.edu. 3. American College of Surgeons, Commission on Cancer, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Lankenau Medical Center, Wynnewood, PA, USA. 5. Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA. 6. Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many quality measures in cancer care are process measures. The rates of compliance for these measures over time have not been well described, and the relationships between measure compliance and survival are not well understood. METHODS: The National Cancer Database, representing cancer registry data from approximately 1500 Commission on Cancer (CoC) cancer programs, was queried to determine the rates of compliance, with the CoC's colon cancer quality measure requiring 12 regional lymph nodes be removed at resection. Data were assessed in 2003, before the measure was reported to programs, through 2015. Measure compliance and risk-adjusted survival were examined by hospital type. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2015, 544,018 cases of colon cancer were analyzed for number of nodes removed. In 2003, compliance was 52.8% and National Cancer Institute (NCI) centers had the highest compliance rate (69.0%), followed by academic cancer centers (61.9%), comprehensive community hospitals (50.9%), and community hospitals (44.0%). Between 2003 and 2015, compliance improved for all hospital types, although differences remained. Risk-adjusted survival in 2009 was better at NCI centers [hazard ratio (HR) 0.76] than at academic cancer centers (HR 0.90), which had better survivals than comprehensive community programs (HR 0.93) when compared with patients treated at community hospitals. CONCLUSION: After introduction of this quality measure, performance at CoC-accredited hospitals improved over the subsequent 13 years, and survival by hospital type paralleled measure compliance by hospital type. This demonstrated measurement may be associated with improvements in performance, and that there are differences in performance and outcome by hospital type.
BACKGROUND: Many quality measures in cancer care are process measures. The rates of compliance for these measures over time have not been well described, and the relationships between measure compliance and survival are not well understood. METHODS: The National Cancer Database, representing cancer registry data from approximately 1500 Commission on Cancer (CoC) cancer programs, was queried to determine the rates of compliance, with the CoC's colon cancer quality measure requiring 12 regional lymph nodes be removed at resection. Data were assessed in 2003, before the measure was reported to programs, through 2015. Measure compliance and risk-adjusted survival were examined by hospital type. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2015, 544,018 cases of colon cancer were analyzed for number of nodes removed. In 2003, compliance was 52.8% and National Cancer Institute (NCI) centers had the highest compliance rate (69.0%), followed by academic cancer centers (61.9%), comprehensive community hospitals (50.9%), and community hospitals (44.0%). Between 2003 and 2015, compliance improved for all hospital types, although differences remained. Risk-adjusted survival in 2009 was better at NCI centers [hazard ratio (HR) 0.76] than at academic cancer centers (HR 0.90), which had better survivals than comprehensive community programs (HR 0.93) when compared with patients treated at community hospitals. CONCLUSION: After introduction of this quality measure, performance at CoC-accredited hospitals improved over the subsequent 13 years, and survival by hospital type paralleled measure compliance by hospital type. This demonstrated measurement may be associated with improvements in performance, and that there are differences in performance and outcome by hospital type.
Authors: Xiang Gao; Mary C Schroeder; Ingrid M Lizarraga; Cheri L Tolle; Timothy W Mullett; Mary E Charlton Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 5.667
Authors: Daniel P Nussbaum; Christel N Rushing; Zhifei Sun; Babatunde A Yerokun; Mathias Worni; Robert S Saunders; Mark B McClellan; Donna Niedzwiecki; Rachel A Greenup; Dan G Blazer Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Danielle Riley; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Ingrid M Lizarraga; Mary Charlton; Brian J Smith; Charles F Lynch Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jacqueline M Soegaard Ballester; Kristin E Goodsell; Jae P Ermer; Giorgos C Karakousis; John T Miura; Nicole M Saur; Najjia N Mahmoud; Ari Brooks; Julia C Tchou; Peter E Gabriel; Lawrence N Shulman; Heather Wachtel Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Madison M Wahlen; Mary C Schroeder; Erin C Johnson; Ingrid M Lizarraga; Jacklyn M Engelbart; David J Tatman; Cheyenne Wagi; Mary E Charlton; Sarah A Birken Journal: Front Health Serv Date: 2022-04-28
Authors: Shivani N Mehta; Edna C Shenvi; Sarah L Blair; Abigail Caudle; Lisa M Lowenstein; Kaitlyn J Kelly Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-10-12 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Dylan T Wolff; Thomas F Monaghan; Danielle J Gordon; Kyle P Michelson; Tashzna Jones; Raymond Khargi; Matthew T Smith; Fenizia Maffucci; Hyezo Kwun; Nicholas R Suss; Andrew G Winer Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 2.430