Breast Cancer Care Quality Indicators in Spain: A Systematic Review

Khalid S. Khan is a distinguished investigator funded by a Beatriz Galindo (senior modality) grant given to the University of Granada by the Spanish Ministry of Education.Breast cancer (BC) management care requires an increment in quality. An initiative to improve the BC quality care is registered, and quality indicators (QIs) are studied. We appraised the appearance of QIs and their standards systematically in Spain. A prospective systematic search (Prospero no: CRD42021228867) for clinical pathways and integrated breast cancer care processes was conducted through databases and the World Wide Web in February 2021. Duplicate data extraction was performed with 98% reviewer agreement. Seventy-four QIs (QI per document mean: 11; standard deviation: 10.59) were found in 15 documents. The Catalonian document had the highest number of QIs (n = 30). No QI appeared in all the documents. There were 9/74 QIs covering structure (12.16%), 53/74 covering process (71.62%), and 12/74 covering outcome (16.22%). A total of 22/66 (33.33%) process and outcome QIs did not set a minimum standard of care. QIs related to primary care, patient satisfaction, and shared decision making were deficient. Most of the documents established a BC QI standard for compliance, but the high variability hinders the comparison of outcomes. Establishing a consensus-based set of QIs needs urgent attention.Spanish Governmen

Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review

Background: It is not clear whether clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are adequately promoting shared decision making (SDM). Objective: To evaluate the recommendations about SDM in CPGs and CSs concerning breast cancer (BC) treatment. Search strategy: Following protocol registration (Prospero no.: CRD42018106643), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2010 to December 2019. Inclusion criteria: CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were selected whether published in a journal or in an online document. Data extraction and synthesis: A 31-item SDM quality assessment tool was developed and used to extract data in duplicate. Main results: There were 167 relevant CPGs (139) and CSs (28); SDM was reported in only 40% of the studies. SDM was reported more often in recent publications after 2015 (42/101 (41.6 %) vs 46/66 (69.7 %), P = .0003) but less often in medical journal publications (44/101 (43.5 %) vs 17/66 (25.7 %), P = .009). In CPGs and CSs with SDM, only 8/66 (12%) met one-fifth (6 of 31) of the quality items; only 14/66 (8%) provided clear and precise SDM recommendations. Discussion and conclusions: SDM descriptions and recommendations in CPGs and CSs concerning BC treatment need improvement. SDM was more frequently reported in CPGs and CSs in recent years, but surprisingly it was less often covered in medical journals, a feature that needs attention

Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review

Background: High-quality, well-reported clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) underpinned by systematic reviews are needed. We appraised the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs for breast cancer (BC) treatment. Methods: Following protocol registration (Prospero no: CRD42020164801), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2017 to June 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate assessing overall quality using AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting compliance using RIGHT (% of total 35 items); reviewer agreement was 98% and 96% respectively. Results: There were 59 relevant guidance documents (43 CPGs, 16 CSs), of which 20 used systematic reviews for evidence synthesis. The median overall quality was 54.0% (IQR 35.9e74.3) and the median overall reporting compliance was 60.9% (IQR 44.5e84.4). The correlation between quality and reporting was 0.9. Compared to CSs, CPGs had better quality (55.4% vs 44.2%; p ¼ 0.032) and reporting (67.18% vs 44.5%; p ¼ 0.005). Compared to subjective methods of evidence analysis, guidance documents that used systematic reviews had better quality (76.3% vs 51.4%; p ¼ 0.001) and reporting (87.1% vs 59.4%; p ¼ 0.001). Conclusion: The quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs in BC treatment were moderately strong. Systematic reviews should be used to improve the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs.Beatriz Galindo (senor modality) Program by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities of the Spanish Governmen

Shared decision making as an indicator of quality in the breast cancer care process

El equipo investigador agradece la colaboración de las Asociaciones colaboradoras en el estudio (AEC, AMAR, AOC, SACPER, SAM y SESPM) que han sido un pilar fundamental para que este se haya podido realizar. También agradecemos al Dr. Manuel García-García, jefe de la Unidad de Cirugía General y Aparato Digestivo del Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense (CHUO), a la Dra. Teresa Moreno-Asencio, F.E.A. del CHUO por la ayuda en la difusión de la encuesta y también al “Programa Beatriz Galindo. Modalidad Senior. Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades” por posibilitar la vinculación del distinguido investigador KSK a la Universidad de Granada.There is no consensus about BC QIs, and SDM is not usually shown as one. BC health care and the QIs used to measure it could be improved in various ways. One of the most important would be the active involvement of patients through procedures such as SDM. Although, SDM concept is known and accepted, there are not enough resources or support for its practical application. Furthermore, SDM is scarcely contemplated in CPGs and CSs although it is a vital requirement for a correct implementation in daily clinical practice.No hay consenso sobre los ICs del CM y la TDC no está recogida habitualmente como uno de ellos. La atención sanitaria del CM y los ICs utilizados para medirla son mejorables. Facilitar la participación activa de los pacientes en la toma de decisiones podría suponer una mejora importante. Si bien el concepto de la TDC es conocido y aceptado, Los recursos e incentivos para su aplicación son insuficientes. Tampoco está suficientemente tratado ni recomendado en las GPCs y CSs, que podrían tener un papel fundamental en su difusión y promoción e implementación en la práctica clínica diaria.Tesis Univ. Granada

Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey

This research received no external funding. Professor Khalid S. Khan is Distinguished Investigator funded by the Beatriz Galindo (senior modality) grant given to the University of Granada by Spanish Ministry of Education.Beatriz Galindo (senior modality) grant by Spanish Ministry of Educatio

Clinical practice guidelines and consensus for the screening of breast cancer: A systematic appraisal of their quality and reporting

Ministry of Science, Innovation, and University of Granada/Consorcio de Bibliotecas Universitarias de Andalucia (CBUA)Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are being promoted to provide high-quality healthcare guidance. This systematic review has assessed the breast cancer (BC) screening CPGs and CSs quality and reporting. Methods: A search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and CDSR), 12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites was performed without language restrictions from January 2017 to June 2020, following prospective registration (Prospero no.: CRD42020203807). AGREE II (% of maximum score) and RIGHT (% of total 35 items) appraised quality and reporting individually, extracting data in duplicate; reviewer agreement was 98% and 93%, respectively. Results: Forty guidances with median overall quality and reporting 51% (interquartile range [IQR] 39–63) and 48% (IQR 35–65), respectively. Twenty-two (55%) and 20 (50%) did not reach the minimum standards (scores <50%). The guidances that deployed systematic reviews had better quality (74.2% vs. 46.9%; p = 0.001) and reporting (80.5% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.001). Guidances reporting a tool referral scored better (AGREE II: 72.8% vs. 43.1%, p = 0.002; RIGHT: 75.0% vs. 46.9%, p = 0.004). Conclusion: BC screening CPGs and CSs suffered poor quality and reporting. More than half did not reach the minimum standards. They would improve if systematic reviews were used to underpin the recommendations made.Ministry of Science, Innovation, and University of Granada/Consorcio de Bibliotecas Universitarias de Andalucia (CBUA

Quality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematic review

KSK is a Distinguished Investigator funded by the Beatriz Galindo (senor modality) Program grant given to the University of Granada by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities of the Spanish Government. We are thankful for the collaboration of the Europa Donna (The European Breast Cancer Coalition) representatives from Belgium Dr Hirsch and Carly, Dr Aleksandrova from Bulgaria, Dr Moldovanova from Russia, Dr Skjoldborg Hansen from Denmark, Dr Egypt from Estonia, Dr Niemi from Finland, Dr Debiais from France, Dr Sartataviciene from Lithuania, Dr Fischbach from Luxembourg, Dr Barilaro from Monaco, Dr Mellem from Norway, Dr Brankovic-Magica from Serbia, Dr Spanic from Slovenia, Dr Bergsten from Sweden, Dr Corbat from Switzerland, Dr Sprengers from the Netherlands, Dr Spittle from the UK, Dr Maistruck from Ukraine and Europa Donna from Portugal. And we would also like to thank Dr Isabel Rubio (EUSOMA and ESSO President) in Spain, Dr Verhoeven at the Breast Centre Voorkempen in Belgium, Dr Ejlertsen, Dr Bohl and Dr Valvere from the Estonian Cancer Society, Dr Espie from the Hopital Saint-Louis in France, Dr Winkler from the Hungarian League against cancer, Dr Zsuzsanna from the University of Szeged in Hungary, Dr Arnardottir from the Landspitali University Hospital in Iceland, Dr. Dillenbourg from the Universite de Liege in Luxembourg, Dr Daly from the University Hospital Waterford in Ireland, Ms Drochon and Dr Goncharenko from the Institute Nacional du Cancer in France, Dr Jenset from the Swedish Breast Cancer Association, Dr Fredriksson from the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden, Dr Ana Andrijevic from the Institute for pulmonary diseases of Vojvodina, Prof Vrancken Peeters from the Dutch Breast Cancer Audit, Dr Verloop and Dr Siesling from IKNL, Prof Ozmen from the Istanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital, Prof Ozaydin from the Turkish Breast Health Society, Dr Lorez from the Swiss Federal Office of Health, the Swiss Cancer League, Dr Mousavi from the Cancer Registry of eastern Switzerland, and Dr Dagmar from the Swiss Office Q-Label. Finally, we are also grateful for the help provided by the Irish Cancer Society, the Norwegian Breast Cancer Association, the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Spain, the Canadian Breast Cancer Network and the Institute of Breast Disease FUCAM in Mexico, the Ministries of Health from Ireland, Georgia, Iceland, Lithuania and Luxembourg.Breast cancer (BC) management care requires an increment in quality. An initiative to improve the BC quality care is registered, and quality indicators (QIs) are studied. We appraised the appearance of QIs and their standards systematically in Spain. A prospective systematic search (Prospero no: CRD42021228867) for clinical pathways and integrated breast cancer care processes was conducted through databases and the World Wide Web in February 2021. Duplicate data extraction was performed with 98% reviewer agreement. Seventy-four QIs (QI per document mean: 11; standard deviation: 10.59) were found in 15 documents. The Catalonian document had the highest number of QIs (n = 30). No QI appeared in all the documents. There were 9/74 QIs covering structure (12.16%), 53/74 covering process (71.62%), and 12/74 covering outcome (16.22%). A total of 22/66 (33.33%) process and outcome QIs did not set a minimum standard of care. QIs related to primary care, patient satisfaction, and shared decision making were deficient. Most of the documents established a BC QI standard for compliance, but the high variability hinders the comparison of outcomes. Establishing a consensus-based set of QIs needs urgent attention.Spanish Governmen

Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey

Objectives: To assess shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge, attitude and application among health professionals involved in breast cancer (BC) treatment. Materials and Methods: A cross sectional study based on an online questionnaire, sent by several professional societies to health professionals involved in BC management. There were 26 questions which combined demographic and professional data with some items measured on a Likert-type scale. Results: The participation (459/541; 84.84%) and completion (443/459; 96.51%) rates were high. Participants strongly agreed or agreed in 69.57% (16/23) of their responses. The majority stated that they knew of SDM (mean 4.43 (4.36–4.55)) and were in favour of its implementation (mean 4.58 (4.51–4.64)). They highlighted that SDM practice was not adequate due to lack of resources (3.46 (3.37–3.55)) and agreed on policies that improved its implementation (3.96 (3.88–4.04)). The main advantage of SDM for participants was patient satisfaction (38%), and the main disadvantage was the patients’ paucity of knowledge to understand their disease (24%). The main obstacle indicated was the lack of time and resources (40%). Conclusions: New policies must be designed for adequate training of professionals in integrating SDM in clinical practice, preparing them to use SDM with adequate resources and time provided.Ye

Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review

Background: It is not clear whether clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are adequately promoting shared decision making (SDM). Objective: To evaluate the recommendations about SDM in CPGs and CSs concerning breast cancer (BC) treatment. Search strategy: Following protocol registration (Prospero no.: CRD42018106643), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2010 to December 2019. Inclusion criteria: CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were selected whether published in a journal or in an online document. Data extraction and synthesis: A 31-item SDM quality assessment tool was developed and used to extract data in duplicate. Main results: There were 167 relevant CPGs (139) and CSs (28); SDM was reported in only 40% of the studies. SDM was reported more often in recent publications after 2015 (42/101 (41.6 %) vs 46/66 (69.7 %), P = .0003) but less often in medical journal publications (44/101 (43.5 %) vs 17/66 (25.7 %), P = .009). In CPGs and CSs with SDM, only 8/66 (12%) met one-fifth (6 of 31) of the quality items; only 14/66 (8%) provided clear and precise SDM recommendations. Discussion and conclusions: SDM descriptions and recommendations in CPGs and CSs concerning BC treatment need improvement. SDM was more frequently reported in CPGs and CSs in recent years, but surprisingly it was less often covered in medical journals, a feature that needs attention.Ye