Quality criteria for pediatric oncology centers: A systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Survival of children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer improved over the last decades due to better diagnostics, treatment, and supportive care. Quality criteria that measure, compare, and make the quality of care of individual pediatric oncology centers more transparent are heterogeneous and inconsistent.

AIM

With this systematic review, we aimed to summarize existing quality criteria for pediatric oncology centers in countries with highly developed health-care systems.

METHODS

We searched three databases for publications, and websites for guidelines about quality criteria for pediatric oncology centers in February 2022. We considered all types of publications except expert opinions. We excluded publications not focusing on highly developed health-care systems, addressing the certification of professionals, or focusing on subspecialties (e.g., pediatric neuro-oncology). We discarded quality criteria if they were too specific (e.g., for a specific treatment center), too broad (e.g., national 5-year overall survival), or if the aspect was covered by standardized clinical procedures or at the national level. We grouped the identified criteria thematically.

RESULTS

We identified 18 publications and guideline documents with 530 criteria, of which 201 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The combination of similar criteria resulted in 90 overarching criteria, which we assigned to the following categories: facilities and networks, multidisciplinary team and other experts, supportive care, treatment, long-term care, and volume and numbers.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide a comprehensive overview of existing quality criteria for pediatric oncology in countries with highly developed health-care systems. These criteria can serve as a basis to develop national quality criteria in pediatric oncology.

Use of quality indicators in neuroblastoma treatment: A feasibility assessment

BACKGROUND

Quality indicators (QIs) may be used to monitor the quality of neuroblastoma (NBL) care during treatment, in addition to survival and treatment toxicity, which can only be evaluated in the years after treatment. The present study aimed to assess the feasibility of a new set of indicators for the quality of NBL therapy.

PROCEDURE

Seven QIs have been proposed based on literature and consensus of experts: (a) duration of complete diagnostic work-up, (b) prescription of thyroid prophylaxis before metaiodobenzylguanidine imaging, (c) treatment intensity, (d) use of tumor board meetings, (e) number of outpatient visits and sedation procedures during follow-up, (f) protocolled follow-up, and (g) required apheresis sessions. A retrospective data analysis from October 2014 to November 2017 including all patients with NBL in the centralized Princess Máxima Center in the Netherlands was performed to assess these parameters and determine practicality of measurement.

RESULTS

A total number of 72 patients (aged between 2 weeks and 15 years) were analyzed. Adherence to all QIs could be determined for all eligible patients using their electronic medical records. Three indicators were compared over time, and an increase in adherence was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of QIs in neuroblastoma treatment is feasible. Seven new QIs were found to be feasible to measure and showed improvement over time for three indicators. Monitoring of these QIs during treatment may provide tools for quality improvement activities and comparisons of treatment quality over time or between centers. Further study is required to investigate their association with long-term outcomes.

Improving the quality of care in the molecular era for children and adolescents with medulloblastoma

PURPOSE

Elevated mortality and morbidity rates persist in pediatric patients with medulloblastoma. We present a clinical audit of a real-world cohort of patients in search for pragmatic measures to improve their management and outcome.

METHODS/PATIENTS

All pediatric patients with medulloblastoma treated between 2003 and 2016 at a Spanish reference center were reviewed. In the absence of internationally accepted quality indicators (QIs) for pediatric CNS tumors, diagnostic, therapeutic, survival, and time QIs were defined and assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were included, 24% were younger children (< 3 years), 36% high risk (anaplastic, metastasis, or surgical residue > 1.5 cm²), and 40% standard risk. Five-year OS was 59.2% (95% CI 47-75); 5-year PFS 36.4% (95% CI 25-53). Five main areas of quality assurance were identified: diagnosis, global strategy, frontline treatment modalities, outcomes, and long-term and end-of-life care. A set of 34 QIs was developed and applied. Lack of central pathology review, delay in the incorporation of novel molecular markers, and absence of a neurocognitive and quality-of-life evaluation program were some of the audit findings.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world research study resulted in the development of a pragmatic set of QIs, aimed to improve clinical audits and quality of care given to children and adolescents with medulloblastoma. We hope that our findings will serve as a reference to further develop a quality assurance system with specific QIs for pediatric CNS tumors in the future and that this will ultimately improve the survival and quality of life of these patients.

Development of Quality Metrics to Evaluate Pediatric Hematologic Oncology Care in the Outpatient Setting

There are currently no clinic-level quality of care metrics for outpatient pediatric oncology. We sought to develop a list of quality of care metrics for a leukemia-lymphoma (LL) clinic using a consensus process that can be adapted to other clinic settings. Medline-Ovid was searched for quality indicators relevant to pediatric oncology. A provisional list of 27 metrics spanning 7 categories was generated and circulated to a Consensus Group (CG) of LL clinic medical and nursing staff. A Delphi process comprising 2 rounds of ranking generated consensus on a final list of metrics. Consensus was defined as ≥70% of CG members ranking a metric within 2 consecutive scores. In round 1, 19 of 27 (70%) metrics reached consensus. CG members' comments resulted in 4 new metrics and revision of 8 original metrics. All 31 metrics were included in round 2. Twenty-four of 31 (77%) metrics reached consensus after round 2. Thirteen were chosen for the final list based on highest scores and eliminating redundancy. These included: patient communication/education; pain management; delay in access to clinical psychology, documentation of chemotherapy, of diagnosis/extent of disease, of treatment plan and of follow-up scheme; referral to transplant; radiation exposure during follow-up; delay until chemotherapy; clinic cancellations; and school attendance. This study provides a model of quality metric development that other clinics may use for local use. The final metrics will be used for ongoing quality improvement in the LL clinic.

Advancing the Measurement of Care Coordination in Pediatric Behavioral Health

OBJECTIVE

To describe the measure review and evaluation process used to identify new measures of care coordination for children with behavioral health needs conducted as part of Massachusetts' Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act Quality Demonstration Grant.

METHOD

The Massachusetts Child Health Quality Coalition identified a shortage of pediatric measures of care coordination in behavioral health. After an extensive literature review, the Measure Development Committee applied the Care Coordination Key Elements Framework (Framework), which was designed as part of the grant work, and used a modified RAND Delphi method to conduct feasibility and validity evaluation and propose the new candidate measures for further rigorous testing.

RESULTS

Thirty-two measures were evaluated. One existing Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set and 8 newly proposed measures met the criteria for feasibility and reliability. These measures represented each of the key elements contained in the Framework. The measures need further testing to ensure scientific acceptability and wide usability.

CONCLUSION

A multipronged methodology was used to propose measures of care coordination in the space of pediatric behavioral health to fill the identified gaps in existing measures.

Measuring the quality of a childhood cancer care delivery system: quality indicator development

OBJECTIVES

A set of indicators to assess the quality of a childhood cancer system has not been identified in any jurisdiction internationally, despite the movement toward increased accountability and provision of high-quality care with limited health care resources. This study was conducted to develop a set of quality indicators (QIs) of a childhood cancer control and health care delivery system in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

A systematic review and targeted gray literature search were conducted to identify potential childhood cancer QIs. A series of investigator focus group sessions followed to review all QIs identified in the literature, and to generate a provisional QI set for a childhood cancer system. QIs were evaluated by three content experts in a sequential selection process on the basis of a series of criteria to select a subset for presentation to stakeholders. Following an appraisal of the relevance of quality assessment frameworks, remaining QIs were mapped onto the Cancer System Quality Index framework.

RESULTS

The systematic review yielded few relevant childhood cancer system QIs. Overall, 120 provisional QIs were developed by the investigator group. Based on median QI rating scores, representation across the childhood cancer continuum, and feasibility of data collection, a subset of 33 QIs was selected for stakeholder consideration.

CONCLUSIONS

The subset of 33 QIs developed on the basis of a systematic literature review and consensus provides the basis for the selection of a set of QIs for ongoing, standardized monitoring of various dimensions of quality in a childhood cancer system.

Measuring the quality of a childhood cancer care delivery system: assessing stakeholder agreement

OBJECTIVES

We described previously the development of a set of quality indicators (QIs) of a childhood cancer system in Ontario, Canada. The purpose of this study was to determine the acceptability of the proposed set of QIs among stakeholders of the childhood cancer system.

METHODS

A modified Delphi method was used to assess stakeholder agreement on the value of the proposed QIs. A QI evaluation survey was mailed to a stakeholder group of 23 multidisciplinary health care providers, survivors, parents, and policymakers who rated each QI on specific criteria. Prior to an in-person consensus meeting, the distribution of scores was provided to panel members. At the meeting, QIs were reevaluated and discussed in three successive rounds. QIs with 80% or more of panel agreement were considered endorsed.

RESULTS

Overall, 20 QIs were endorsed by the panel, measuring all seven quality dimensions of Ontario's Cancer System Quality Index framework. Five QIs were endorsed by 100% of the panel as follows: Five-year event-free survival, chemotherapy admission delay, drug availability, sufficient multidisciplinary staff, and parent satisfaction. Although none of the QIs relating to end-of-life or Satellite care were endorsed, panel members emphasized the need to measure these components of the system.

CONCLUSIONS

Standardized implementation of the 20 pediatric cancer QIs endorsed by the multidisciplinary stakeholder panel will provide ongoing monitoring of various dimensions of system quality and the development of benchmarks over time, greatly augmenting the ability to identify needed system improvements across populations and jurisdictions.

Establishing a quality measurement system for cancer care in Japan

Ensuring the quality of care is a major objective of cancer control policy. The Cancer Control Act 2006 placed responsibility on the Japanese government to maintain the quality of cancer care nationwide. To function as centers providing high-quality care, designated cancer care hospitals (397 hospitals as of April 2012) were instituted nationwide. Although they meet the structural standards, such as the presence of radiation equipment and palliative care teams, it remains unclear whether the designation has led to appropriate provision of care and optimal patient outcomes. A national system to examine the processes and outcomes of cancer care is under development. In 2007 and 2008, the Japanese Association of Clinical Cancer Centers publicly disclosed the 5-year survival of their member facilities with strict data quality standards, including sufficient follow-up of patients' vital status. The network of designated cancer care hospitals will follow this lead to provide a national outcome monitoring system. The processes of care have also been addressed by a government-funded research project. With the collaboration of clinical experts, 206 quality indicators have been developed for five major cancers in Japan (breast, colorectal, liver, lung and stomach) and palliative care. Each indicator described the target patients and standards of care for the patients, the provision of which was considered an aspect of quality. In 2012, the Cancer Registry Chapter of the Association of Prefectural Designated Cancer Care Hospitals instituted quality measurement using these indicators. These activities will soon lead to effective quality monitoring and improvement in Japan.