Euan T Walpole1,2,3, David E Theile3, Shoni Philpot3, Philippa H Youl3. 1. 1 Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 2. 2 The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 3. 3 Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many cancer-specific assessment tools to measure health care performance have been developed. However, reporting on quality indicators at a population level is uncommon. We describe the development and implementation of a Cancer Quality Index (CQI) and examine the sensitivity of the index to detect change over time. METHODS: In developing the CQI, we reviewed existing indices, guidelines, and cancer care pathways. Our choice of indicators was additionally guided by the availability of population-wide data. A series of pilot indicators underwent trial use and were evaluated, and outcomes were discussed before a final set of indicators was established. The process was overseen by a clinician-led quality assurance committee that included hospital administrators and data custodians. RESULTS: The CQI includes five quality dimensions and 16 indicators for public and private cancer services using population-wide information. The following are the five indicators: Effective, Efficient, Safe, Accessible, and Equitable. We demonstrated the sensitivity of the CQI to measure change over time by examining outcomes such as time to first treatment and 30-day surgical mortality, using linked cancer registry and health administrative data for 99,728 patients with cancer diagnosed between 2005 and 2009 and 2010 and 2014. CONCLUSION: The CQI is a valuable tool to track progress in delivering safe, quality cancer care within health care services. Critical to its development and implementation has been the involvement of clinicians from several disciplines and the availability of population-based data. We found the CQI to be a sensitive tool able to detect changes over time.
PURPOSE: Many cancer-specific assessment tools to measure health care performance have been developed. However, reporting on quality indicators at a population level is uncommon. We describe the development and implementation of a Cancer Quality Index (CQI) and examine the sensitivity of the index to detect change over time. METHODS: In developing the CQI, we reviewed existing indices, guidelines, and cancer care pathways. Our choice of indicators was additionally guided by the availability of population-wide data. A series of pilot indicators underwent trial use and were evaluated, and outcomes were discussed before a final set of indicators was established. The process was overseen by a clinician-led quality assurance committee that included hospital administrators and data custodians. RESULTS: The CQI includes five quality dimensions and 16 indicators for public and private cancer services using population-wide information. The following are the five indicators: Effective, Efficient, Safe, Accessible, and Equitable. We demonstrated the sensitivity of the CQI to measure change over time by examining outcomes such as time to first treatment and 30-day surgical mortality, using linked cancer registry and health administrative data for 99,728 patients with cancer diagnosed between 2005 and 2009 and 2010 and 2014. CONCLUSION: The CQI is a valuable tool to track progress in delivering safe, quality cancer care within health care services. Critical to its development and implementation has been the involvement of clinicians from several disciplines and the availability of population-based data. We found the CQI to be a sensitive tool able to detect changes over time.
Authors: Shantelle Smith; Margaret Brand; Susan Harden; Lisa Briggs; Lillian Leigh; Fraser Brims; Mark Brooke; Vanessa N Brunelli; Collin Chia; Paul Dawkins; Ross Lawrenson; Mary Duffy; Sue Evans; Tracy Leong; Henry Marshall; Dainik Patel; Nick Pavlakis; Jennifer Philip; Nicole Rankin; Nimit Singhal; Emily Stone; Rebecca Tay; Shalini Vinod; Morgan Windsor; Gavin M Wright; David Leong; John Zalcberg; Rob G Stirling Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-08-29 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Bela Ines Laginha; Frances Rapport; Andrea Smith; David Wilkinson; Anne E Cust; Jeffrey Braithwaite Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Braden Woodhouse; Sharon Pattison; Eva Segelov; Simron Singh; Kate Parker; Grace Kong; William Macdonald; David Wyld; Goswin Meyer-Rochow; Nick Pavlakis; Siobhan Conroy; Vallerie Gordon; Jonathan Koea; Nicole Kramer; Michael Michael; Kate Wakelin; Tehmina Asif; Dorothy Lo; Timothy Price; Ben Lawrence Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 4.241