Over the past decade, there has been an increased interest in defining and monitoring quality indicators (QI) in the field of oncology including the field of radiation oncology. The comprehensive ...gathering and analysis of QIs on a multicentric scale offer valuable insights into identifying gaps in clinical practice and fostering continuous improvement. This article delineates the evolution and results of the Belgian national project dedicated to radiotherapy-specific QIs while also exploring the challenges and opportunities inherent in implementing such a multi-centric initiative.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Lung cancer screening with a low radiation dose chest CT scan is the standard of care for screening-eligible individuals. The net benefit of screening may be optimized by delivering high-quality ...care, capable of maximizing the benefit and minimizing the harms of screening. Valid, feasible, and relevant indicators of the quality of lung cancer screening may help programs to evaluate their current practice and to develop quality improvement plans. The purpose of this project was to develop quality indicators related to the processes and outcomes of screening. Potential quality indicators were explored through surveys of multidisciplinary lung cancer screening experts. Those that achieved predefined measures of consensus for each of the validity, feasibility, and relevance domains are proposed as quality indicators. Each of the proposed indicators is described in detail, with guidance on how to define, measure, and improve program performance within the indicator.
Over the past decade, failure to rescue—defined as the death of a patient after one or more potentially treatable complications—has received increased attention as a surgical quality indicator. ...Failure to rescue is an appealing quality target because it implicitly accounts for the fact that postoperative complications may not always be preventable and is based on the premise that prompt recognition and treatment of complications is a critical, actionable point during a patient’s postoperative course. Although numerous patient and macrosystem factors have been associated with failure to rescue, there is an increasing appreciation of the key role of microsystem factors. Although failure to rescue is believed to contribute to observed hospital-level variation in both surgical outcomes and costs, further work is needed to delineate the underlying patient-level and system-level factors preventing the timely identification and treatment of postoperative complications. Therefore, the goals of this narrative review are to provide a conceptual framework for understanding failure to rescue, to discuss various associated patient- and system-level factors, to delineate the reasons it has become recognized as an important quality indicator, and to propose future directions of scientific inquiry for developing effective interventions that can be broadly implemented to improve postoperative outcomes across all hospitals.
Margaret McGregor and colleagues consider Bradford Hill's framework for examining causation in observational research for the association between nursing home care quality and for-profit ownership.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
To review and update the conceptual framework, indicator content and research priorities of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Health Care Quality Indicators (HCQI) ...project, after a decade of collaborative work.
A structured assessment was carried out using a modified Delphi approach, followed by a consensus meeting, to assess the suite of HCQI for international comparisons, agree on revisions to the original framework and set priorities for research and development.
International group of countries participating to OECD projects.
Members of the OECD HCQI expert group.
A reference matrix, based on a revised performance framework, was used to map and assess all seventy HCQI routinely calculated by the OECD expert group. A total of 21 indicators were agreed to be excluded, due to the following concerns: (i) relevance, (ii) international comparability, particularly where heterogeneous coding practices might induce bias, (iii) feasibility, when the number of countries able to report was limited and the added value did not justify sustained effort and (iv) actionability, for indicators that were unlikely to improve on the basis of targeted policy interventions.
The revised OECD framework for HCQI represents a new milestone of a long-standing international collaboration among a group of countries committed to building common ground for performance measurement. The expert group believes that the continuation of this work is paramount to provide decision makers with a validated toolbox to directly act on quality improvement strategies.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NMLJ, NUK, PNG, UL, UM, UPUK
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively estimate adenoma miss rate (AMR) and advanced AMR (AAMR) and explore associated factors.
We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, ...and Ovid EMBASE databases for studies published through April 2018 on tandem colonoscopies, with AMR and AAMR as the primary outcomes. We performed meta-regression analyses to identify risk factors and factors associated with outcome. Primary outcomes were AMR and AAMR and secondary outcomes were AMR and AAMR for different locations, sizes, pathologies, morphologies, and populations.
In a meta-analysis of 43 publications and more than 15,000 tandem colonoscopies, we calculated miss rates of 26% for adenomas (95% confidence interval CI 23%–30%), 9% for advanced adenomas (95% CI 4%–16%), and 27% for serrated polyps (95% CI 16%–40%). Miss rates were high for proximal advanced adenomas (14%; 95% CI 5%–26%), serrated polyps (27%; 95% CI 16%–40%), flat adenomas (34%; 95% CI 24%–45%), and in patients at high risk for colorectal cancer (33%; 95% CI 26%–41%). Miss rates could be decreased by adequate bowel preparation and auxiliary techniques (P = .06; P = .04, and P = .01, respectively). The adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per index colonoscopy, and adenomas per positive index colonoscopy (APPC) were independently associated with AMR (P = .02, P = .01, and P = .008, respectively), whereas APPC was the only factor independently associated with AAMR (P = .006). An APPC value greater than 1.8 was more effective in monitoring AMR (31% vs 15% for AMR P < .0001) than an ADR value of at least 34% (27% vs 17% for AMR; P = .008). The AAMR of colonoscopies with an APPC value below 1.7 was 35%, vs 2% for colonoscopies with an APPC value of at least 1.7 (P = .0005).
In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that adenomas and advanced adenomas are missed (based on AMR and AAMR) more frequently than previously believed. In addition to ADR, APPC deserves consideration as a complementary indicator of colonoscopy quality, if it is validated in additional studies.
Display omitted
Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a high burden of physical and psychosocial symptoms, poor outcomes, and high costs of care. Current paradigms of care for this highly ...vulnerable population are variable, prognostic and assessment tools are limited, and quality of care, particularly regarding conservative and palliative care, is suboptimal. The KDIGO Controversies Conference on Supportive Care in CKD reviewed the current state of knowledge in order to define a roadmap to guide clinical and research activities focused on improving the outcomes of people living with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis. An international group of multidisciplinary experts in CKD, palliative care, methodology, economics, and education identified the key issues related to palliative care in this population. The conference led to a working plan to address outstanding issues in this arena, and this executive summary serves as an output to guide future work, including the development of globally applicable guidelines.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
In 2010, EUSOMA published a position paper, describing a set of benchmark quality indicators (QIs) that could be adopted by breast centres to allow standardised auditing and quality assurance and to ...establish an agreed minimum standard of care. Towards the end of 2014, EUSOMA decided to update the paper on QIs to consider and incorporate new scientific knowledge in the field. Several new QIs have been included to address the need for improved follow-up care of patients following primary treatments. With regard to the management of elderly patients, considering the complexity, the expert group decided that, for some specific quality indicators, if centres fail to meet the minimum standard, older patients will be excluded from analysis, provided that reasons for non-adherence to the QI are specified in the clinical chart and are identified at the review of the clinical records. In this way, high standards are promoted, but centres are able to identify and account for the effect of non-standard treatment in the elderly. In the paper, there is no QI for outcome measurements, such as relapse rate or overall survival. However, it is hoped that this will be developed in time as the databases mature and user experience increases. All breast centres are required to record outcome data as accurately and comprehensively as possible to allow this to occur. In the paper, different initiatives undertaken at international and national level to audit quality of care through a set of QIs have been mentioned.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
PDF
