Quality indicators in surgical oncology: systematic review of measures used to compare quality across hospitals

Background: Measurement and reporting of quality indicators at the hospital level has been shown to improve outcomes and support patient choice. Although there are many studies validating individual quality indicators, there has been no systematic approach to understanding what quality indicators exist for surgical oncology and no standardization for their use. The aim of this study was to review quality indicators used to assess variation in quality in surgical oncology care across hospitals or regions. It also sought to describe the aims of these studies and what, if any, feedback was offered to the analysed groups. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 October 2023 that applied surgical quality indicators to detect variation in cancer care at the hospital or regional level. Results: A total of 89 studies assessed 91 unique quality indicators that fell into the following Donabedian domains: process indicators (58; 64%); outcome indicators (26; 29%); structure indicators (6; 7%); and structure and outcome indicators (1; 1%). Purposes of evaluating variation included: identifying outliers (43; 48%); comparing centres with a benchmark (14; 16%); and supplying evidence of practice variation (29; 33%). Only 23 studies (26%) reported providing the results of their analyses back to those supplying data. Conclusion: Comparisons of quality in surgical oncology within and among hospitals and regions have been undertaken in high-income countries. Quality indicators tended to be process measures and reporting focused on identifying outlying hospitals. Few studies offered feedback to data suppliers

Quality indicators in surgical oncology: systematic review of measures used to compare quality across hospitals

BACKGROUND: Measurement and reporting of quality indicators at the hospital level has been shown to improve outcomes and support patient choice. Although there are many studies validating individual quality indicators, there has been no systematic approach to understanding what quality indicators exist for surgical oncology and no standardization for their use. The aim of this study was to review quality indicators used to assess variation in quality in surgical oncology care across hospitals or regions. It also sought to describe the aims of these studies and what, if any, feedback was offered to the analysed groups. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 October 2023 that applied surgical quality indicators to detect variation in cancer care at the hospital or regional level. RESULTS: A total of 89 studies assessed 91 unique quality indicators that fell into the following Donabedian domains: process indicators (58; 64%); outcome indicators (26; 29%); structure indicators (6; 7%); and structure and outcome indicators (1; 1%). Purposes of evaluating variation included: identifying outliers (43; 48%); comparing centres with a benchmark (14; 16%); and supplying evidence of practice variation (29; 33%). Only 23 studies (26%) reported providing the results of their analyses back to those supplying data. CONCLUSION: Comparisons of quality in surgical oncology within and among hospitals and regions have been undertaken in high-income countries. Quality indicators tended to be process measures and reporting focused on identifying outlying hospitals. Few studies offered feedback to data suppliers

Knowledge Summaries for Comprehensive Breast Cancer Control

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, affecting > 1.6 million women each year, projected to increase to 2.2 million cases annually by 2025. A disproportionate number of the > 500,000 women who die as a result of breast cancer each year reside in low-resource settings. Breast cancer control is an important component of cancer control planning and women’s health programs, and tools are needed across the care continuum to reduce the cancer burden, especially in low-resource settings. Cancer control planning is complex and multifaceted. Evidence shows that outcomes are improved when prevention, early diagnosis, treatment, and palliation are integrated and synchronously developed within a country/region’s health plan. The Knowledge Summaries for Comprehensive Breast Cancer Control are the product of a multiyear collaboration led by the Union for International Cancer Control, Breast Health Global Initiative, Pan American Health Organization, and Center for Global Health of the US National Cancer Institute. Fourteen knowledge summaries distilled from evidence-based, resource-stratified guidelines, and aligned with WHO guidance on breast cancer control, build a framework for resource prioritization pathways and delivery systems for breast cancer control at four levels of available resources: basic, limited, enhanced, and maximal. Each summary contains relevant content to inform breast cancer policy, clinical care, and advocacy, aiding in the development and implementation of policies and programs. These tools provide a common platform for stakeholders, including policymakers, administrators, clinicians, and advocates to engage in decision making appropriate to their local setting. The goal is to facilitate evidence-based policy actions and urgently advance implementation of an integrated approach to reduce breast cancer mortality and improve quality of life

Developing and sustaining high-quality care for children with cancer: the WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer

Cancer is a major public health concern, impacting nearly 20 million people each year, and it is responsible for 1 in 6 deaths worldwide. The burden of cancer is increasing rapidly, straining health systems that are unable to prevent and manage the disease. Childhood cancer constitutes a significant and relevant public health challenge; it was the ninth leading cause of childhood disease globally, according to findings by the Global Burden of Disease 2017 study. Almost 80% of all children diagnosed with cancer live in low- and middle-income countries where treatment is often unavailable or unaffordable. As a result, only about 15–45% of these children survive compared with more than 80% in high-income countries. This represents a great health inequity. Delivering on the mandate provided by World Health Assembly resolution 70.12, WHO together with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and other global partners launched the Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer at the United Nations General Assembly during the third High-level Meeting on the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases in September 2018. The Initiative aims to increase global survival for children with cancer to at least 60% by 2030, while reducing suffering for all children with cancer. Five years after launching the Initiative, more than 70 countries across the World Health Organization’s 6 regions have advanced to different phases of action through implementation of the Initiative’s CureAll framework for action. Many successful approaches to implementing the CureAll pillars and enablers have demonstrated that improving care for children with cancer in low- and middle-income countries is possible as long as there is strong political will, multisectoral commitments and strategic investment

Quality indicators for evaluating cancer care in low-income and middle-income country settings: a multinational modified Delphi study.

This Policy Review sourced opinions from experts in cancer care across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to build consensus around high-priority measures of care quality. A comprehensive list of quality indicators in medical, radiation, and surgical oncology was identified from systematic literature reviews. A modified Delphi study consisting of three 90-min workshops and two international electronic surveys integrating a global range of key clinical, policy, and research leaders was used to derive consensus on cancer quality indicators that would be both feasible to collect and were high priority for cancer care systems in LMICs. Workshop participants narrowed the list of 216 quality indicators from the literature review to 34 for inclusion in the subsequent surveys. Experts’ responses to the surveys showed consensus around nine high-priority quality indicators for measuring the quality of hospital-based cancer care in LMICs. These quality indicators focus on important processes of care delivery from accurate diagnosis (eg, histologic diagnosis via biopsy and TNM staging) to adequate, timely, and appropriate treatment (eg, completion of radiotherapy and appropriate surgical intervention). The core indicators selected could be used to implement systems of feedback and quality improvement

An ethical imperative : safety and specialization as nursing priorities of WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer

CITATION: Pergert, P., et al. 2019. An ethical imperative : safety and specialization as nursing priorities of WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer. Pediatric Blood & Cancer, 67(4):e28143, doi:10.1002/pbc.28143.The original publication is available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Abstract not availablehttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pbc.28143Publisher's versio

Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption.

Commentary. The overall risks and harms resulting from alcohol consumption have been systematically assessed and are well documented. According to the latest WHO estimates, alcohol consumption contributed to 3 million deaths in 2016 globally and was responsible for 5·1% of the global burden of disease and injury..

Cancer medicines on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines: processes, challenges, and a way forward

The selection of cancer medicines for national procurement requires deliberate evaluation of population benefit, budget impact, sustainability, and health system capacity. However, this process is complicated by numerous challenges, including the large volume and rapid pace of newly developed therapies offering marginal gains at prohibitively high prices. The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) and Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (EMLc) have undergone a series of evidence-based updates to ensure recommended cancer medicines offer meaningful clinical benefit. This Health Policy paper describes how cancer medicines are listed on the EML and EMLc, including two updated WHO processes: (1) the formation of the Cancer Medicines Working Group, and (2) additional selection principles for recommending cancer medicines, including a minimum overall survival benefit of 4-6 months with improvement to quality of life compared with standard treatment. These updates, along with proposals to include formal price considerations, additional selection criteria, and multisectoral collaboration (eg, voluntary licensing) promote procurement of high-value essential cancer medicines on national formularies in the context of supporting sustainable health systems to achieve universal health coverage