Narhari Timilshina1,2, Antonio Finelli3, George Tomlinson1,2,4, Anna Gagliardi1, Beate Sander1,4, Shabbir M H Alibhai1,2. 1. Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) collaborative, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although many low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients worldwide currently receive active surveillance (AS), adherence to clinical guidelines on AS and variations in care at the population level remain poorly understood. We sought to develop system-level quality indicators (QIs) and performance measures for benchmarking the quality of care during AS. METHODS: Convenience sampling methods were used to identify an expert panel among practicing urologists and radiation oncologists across Canada. QI development involved two phases: 1) proposed QIs were identified through a literature search and published clinical guidelines on AS; and 2) indicators were selected through a modified Delphi process during which each panelist independently rated each indicator based on clinical importance. QI items were chosen as appropriate measures for quality of AS care if they met prespecified criteria (disagreement index <1 and median importance of ≥7 on a nine-point scale). RESULTS: Among 42 invited expert panel members, the response rate was 45% (n=19). Expert panel members were well-represented by type of physician (84% urologists, 16% radiation oncologists) and practice setting (79% academic, 21% non-academic). The expert panel endorsed 20 of 27 potential indicators as appropriate for measuring quality of AS care. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a set of QIs to measure AS care using published guidelines and clinical experts. Use of the indicators will be assessed for feasibility in healthcare databases. Reporting quality of care with these AS indicators may enhance adherence, reduce variation in care, and improve patient outcomes among low-risk PCa patients on AS.
INTRODUCTION: Although many low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients worldwide currently receive active surveillance (AS), adherence to clinical guidelines on AS and variations in care at the population level remain poorly understood. We sought to develop system-level quality indicators (QIs) and performance measures for benchmarking the quality of care during AS. METHODS: Convenience sampling methods were used to identify an expert panel among practicing urologists and radiation oncologists across Canada. QI development involved two phases: 1) proposed QIs were identified through a literature search and published clinical guidelines on AS; and 2) indicators were selected through a modified Delphi process during which each panelist independently rated each indicator based on clinical importance. QI items were chosen as appropriate measures for quality of AS care if they met prespecified criteria (disagreement index <1 and median importance of ≥7 on a nine-point scale). RESULTS: Among 42 invited expert panel members, the response rate was 45% (n=19). Expert panel members were well-represented by type of physician (84% urologists, 16% radiation oncologists) and practice setting (79% academic, 21% non-academic). The expert panel endorsed 20 of 27 potential indicators as appropriate for measuring quality of AS care. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a set of QIs to measure AS care using published guidelines and clinical experts. Use of the indicators will be assessed for feasibility in healthcare databases. Reporting quality of care with these AS indicators may enhance adherence, reduce variation in care, and improve patient outcomes among low-risk PCa patients on AS.
Authors: Paul R Womble; James E Montie; Zaojun Ye; Susan M Linsell; Brian R Lane; David C Miller Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-08-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sean A Fletcher; Nicolas von Landenberg; Alexander P Cole; Philipp Gild; Toni K Choueiri; Stuart R Lipsitz; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Adam S Kibel Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: David C Miller; Mark S Litwin; Martin G Sanda; James E Montie; Rodney L Dunn; Jennifer Resh; Howard Sandler; John T Wei Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Taylor Murray; Jiaquan Xu; Carol Smigal; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Sophie M Bruinsma; Chris H Bangma; Peter R Carroll; Michael S Leapman; Antti Rannikko; Neophytos Petrides; Mahesha Weerakoon; Leonard P Bokhorst; Monique J Roobol Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2016-01-27 Impact factor: 14.432