Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines

Background Not all cancer patients receive state-of-the-art care and providing regular feedback to clinicians might reduce this problem. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of various data sources in providing feedback on the quality of cancer care. Methods Published clinical practice guidelines were used to obtain a list of processes-of-care of interest to clinicians. These were assigned to one of four data categories according to their availability and the marginal cost of using them for feedback. Results Only 8 (3%) of 243 processes-of-care could be measured using population-based registry or administrative inpatient data (lowest cost). A further 119 (49%) could be measured using a core clinical registry, which contains information on important prognostic factors (e.g., clinical stage, physiological reserve, hormone-receptor status). Another 88 (36%) required an expanded clinical registry or medical record review; mainly because they concerned long-term management of disease progression (recurrences and metastases) and 28 (11.5%) required patient interview or audio-taping of consultations because they involved information sharing between clinician and patient. Conclusion The advantages of population-based cancer registries and administrative inpatient data are wide coverage and low cost. The disadvantage is that they currently contain information on only a few processes-of-care. In most jurisdictions, clinical cancer registries, which can be used to report on many more processes-of-care, do not cover smaller hospitals. If we are to provide feedback about all patients, not just those in larger academic hospitals with the most developed data systems, then we need to develop sustainable population-based data systems that capture information on prognostic factors at the time of initial diagnosis and information on management of disease progression

Is quality of colorectal cancer care good enough? Core measures development and its application for comparing hospitals in Taiwan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although performance measurement for assessing care quality is an emerging area, a system for measuring the quality of cancer care at the hospital level has not been well developed. The purpose of this study was to develop organization-based core measures for colorectal cancer patient care and apply these measures to compare hospital performance.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The development of core measures for colorectal cancer has undergone three stages including a modified Delphi method. The study sample originated from 2004 data in the Taiwan Cancer Database, a national cancer data registry. Eighteen hospitals and 5585 newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients were enrolled in this study. We used indicator-based and case-based approaches to examine adherences simultaneously.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The final core measure set included seventeen indicators (1 pre-treatment, 11 treatment-related and 5 monitoring-related). There were data available for ten indicators. Indicator-based adherence possesses more meaningful application than case-based adherence for hospital comparisons. Mean adherence was 85.8% (79.8% to 91%) for indicator-based and 82.8% (77.6% to 88.9%) for case-based approaches. Hospitals performed well (>90%) for five out of eleven indicators. Still, the performance across hospitals varied for many indicators. The best and poorest system performance was reflected in indicators T5-negative surgical margin (99.3%, 97.2% - 100.0%) and T7-lymph nodes harvest more than twelve(62.7%, 27.6% - 92.2%), both of which related to surgical specimens.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this nationwide study, quality of colorectal cancer care still shows room for improvement. These preliminary results indicate that core measures for cancer can be developed systematically and applied for internal quality improvement.</p

Chemoselection as a strategy for organ preservation in patients with T4 laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma with cartilage invasion

Objectives/Hypothesis: High rates of overall survival (OS) and laryngeal preservation were achieved in two sequential phase II clinical trials in patients with stage III/IV laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Patients were treated with chemoradiation after a >50% primary tumor response to one cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (IC). We analyzed outcomes for T4 patients with cartilage invasion from both studies. Study Design: Retrospective. Methods: Records from 36 patients with T4 SCC of the larynx with cartilage invasion alone (n = 16) or cartilage invasion and extralaryngeal spread (n = 20) were retrospectively reviewed. All were treated with one cycle of cisplatin (100 mg/m 2 ) [or carboplatin (AUC 6)] and 5-fluorouracil (1,000 mg/m 2 /d for 5 days) (P+5FU). Those achieving >50% response at the primary tumor received chemoradiation (70 Gy; 35 fractions with concurrent cisplatin-100 mg/m 2 [carboplatin (AUC 6)] every 21 days for 3 cycles), followed by adjuvant P+5FU for complete histologic responders (CHR). Patients with 50% response following IC. Of these, 27 received definitive chemoradiation, 23 (85%) obtained CHR, with 58% laryngeal preservation rate. The 3-year OS was 78%, and the disease-specific survival was 80% (median follow-up 69 months). Following chemoradiation, 8/11 (73%) patients with an intact larynx had >75% understandable speech, 6/36 (17%) were g-tube dependent and 6/36 (17%) were tracheostomy dependent. Conclusions: Our results suggest that chemo-selection is a feasible organ preservation alternative to total laryngectomy for patients with T4 laryngeal SCC with cartilage invasion. Laryngoscope, 2009Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/63548/1/20294_ftp.pd