Comparative indicators for cancer network management in England: availability, characteristics and presentation

Highly significant improvement in guideline adherence, relapse-free and overall survival in breast cancer patients when treated at certified breast cancer centres: An evaluation of 8323 patients

OBJECTIVES

Certified multi-disciplinary breast cancer centres (CBCs) have been established worldwide. Development of CBCs, guideline-adherent systemic therapy and surgical management should now show an impact on outcomes. This analysis aimed to investigate whether guideline adherence (GA) rates, relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) have significantly improved at CBCs compared to the pre-certification period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

8323 patients with primary breast cancer were treated in 17 German CBCs, which had been certified between 2003 and 2007 [2003 (n = 1), 2004 (n = 6), 2005 (n = 3), 2006 (n = 6) and 2007 (n = 1)]. 3544 patients (42.6%) were treated before certification and 4779 patients (57.4%) after certification.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

A highly significant (p < 0.001) difference in 100%-GA was found between the various hospitals before certification (min 25.0%; max 54.6%). In 2008, when all participating hospitals were certified, the GA rate was 61.8% (min 39.5%, max 74.4%) and 69.2% (min 45.9%, max 86.4%) for patients <75 y (n = 6675). The difference between pre-certification 100%-GA (46.9%) and post-certification (57.2%) was highly significant (p < 0.001). RFS and OS were both significantly better after certification compared to the pre-certification period (RFS: HR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.68-0.92; p = 0.003; OS: HR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.65-0.85; p < 0.001). 5-year RFS (OS) of patients <75 y was 89.6% (85.4%) pre-certification and 91.4% (89.5%) post-certification. Since improvement in GA and outcomes correlated as well, GA remains a highly significant prognostic factor for RFS and OS regardless of NPI, intrinsic subtype and adjuvant systemic therapy. This suggests that the certification process is strongly associated with improvements in outcome.

Catching and monitoring clinical innovation through performance indicators. The case of the breast-conserving surgery indicator

Background

The evolution in the surgical and diagnostic procedures, the attention to women’s preferences, the case mix, and differences in professional practices may lead to a variability in the quality of breast cancer clinical pathway. To catch and manage this variability it is important to use valid measures. The aim of this paper is to examine the concurrent validity of the breast-conserving surgery (BCS) indicator and to provide evidence to guide the quality improvement process.

Methods

The BCS indicator was calculated using hospital discharge records (HDRs) and was validated against surgical registry (SR) data in a random sample of 336 women undergoing breast cancer surgery in 2012 in two Tuscan teaching hospitals. The concurrent validity of BCS was examined by cross-tabulating patients using the ICD-9 CM codes for breast surgery obtained from the two data sources.

Results

The analysis, carried out involving breast cancer professionals, highlighted that the large majority of interventions coded as “mastectomies” in HDRs are in fact reconstructing procedures, including nipple-sparing, skin-sparing and skin-reducing mastectomies in SR. These results led us to refine the old algorithm, that calculates the proportion of breast-conserving surgery over the total number of breast interventions, and reclassify breast cancer surgical procedures into three categories: conservative, reconstructive and traditional mastectomy. Based on this new classification algorithm, the percentages of (I) reconstructive interventions were 16% at Florence TH and 38.3% at Pisa TH; (II) breast-conserving interventions were respectively 72.8 and 52.1%; and (III) mastectomies 11.2 and 9.6%. After adjusting for age in a logistic regression model, the percentages of reconstructive interventions at Florence and Pisa were respectively 22 and 34% and those of breast-conserving interventions 63 and 53%.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that breast cancer care indicators should be refined by distinguishing reconstructive procedures (nipple/skin-sparing surgery with implant or breast tissue expander insertion) from traditional mastectomy. The involvement of breast care professionals in the choice of indicators proved to be crucial to capture the up-to-date breast cancer surgical practice and inform the quality improvement process.

Identification of performance indicators across a network of clinical cancer programs

BACKGROUND

Cancer quality indicators have previously been described for a single tumour site or a single treatment modality, or according to distinct data sources. Our objective was to identify cancer quality indicators across all treatment modalities specific to breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer.

METHODS

Candidate indicators for each tumour site were extracted from the relevant literature and rated in a modified Delphi approach by multidisciplinary groups of expert clinicians from 3 clinical cancer programs. All rating rounds were conducted by e-mail, except for one that was conducted as a face-to-face expert panel meeting, thus modifying the original Delphi technique. Four high-level indicators were chosen for immediate data collection. A list of confounding variables was also constructed in a separate literature review.

RESULTS

A total of 156 candidate indicators were identified for breast cancer, 68 for colorectal cancer, 40 for lung cancer, and 43 for prostate cancer. Iterative rounds of ratings led to a final list of 20 evidence- and consensus-based indicators each for colorectal and lung cancer, and 19 each for breast and prostate cancer. Approximately 30 clinicians participated in the selection of the breast, lung, and prostate indicators; approximately 50 clinicians participated in the selection of the colorectal indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified Delphi approach that incorporates an in-person meeting of expert clinicians is an effective and efficient method for performance indicator selection and offers the added benefit of optimal clinician engagement. The finalized indicator lists for each tumour site, together with salient confounding variables, can be directly adopted (or adapted) for deployment within a performance improvement program.

Benchmarking facilities providing care: An international overview of initiatives

We performed a literature review of existing benchmarking projects of health facilities to explore (1) the rationales for those projects, (2) the motivation for health facilities to participate, (3) the indicators used and (4) the success and threat factors linked to those projects. We studied both peer-reviewed and grey literature. We examined 23 benchmarking projects of different medical specialities. The majority of projects used a mix of structure, process and outcome indicators. For some projects, participants had a direct or indirect financial incentive to participate (such as reimbursement by Medicaid/Medicare or litigation costs related to quality of care). A positive impact was reported for most projects, mainly in terms of improvement of practice and adoption of guidelines and, to a lesser extent, improvement in communication. Only 1 project reported positive impact in terms of clinical outcomes. Success factors and threats are linked to both the benchmarking process (such as organisation of meetings, link with existing projects) and indicators used (such as adjustment for diagnostic-related groups). The results of this review will help coordinators of a benchmarking project to set it up successfully.

Do community-based patient assistance programs affect the treatment and well-being of patients with breast cancer?

PURPOSE

Patients with breast cancer who need adjuvant treatments often fail to receive them. High-quality, community-based patient-assistance programs are an underused, inexpensive resource to help patients with cancer obtain needed therapy. We sought to determine whether connecting women to patient-assistance programs would reduce underuse of adjuvant therapies.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized trial of 374 women (190 assigned intervention [INT], 184 to usual care [UC]) with early-stage breast cancer who underwent surgery between October 2006 and August 2009. After initial needs assessment, individualized action plans were created to connect INT patients with targeted patient-assistance programs; UC patients received an informational pamphlet. Main outcome measures were receiving adjuvant treatment and obtaining help.

RESULTS

High rates of INT and UC patients received treatment: 87% INT versus 91% UC women who underwent lumpectomy received radiotherapy (P = .39); 93% INT versus 86% UC women with estrogen receptor (ER) -negative tumors ≥ 1 cm received chemotherapy (P = .42); 92% INT versus 93% UC women with ER-positive tumors ≥ 1 cm received hormonal therapy (P = .80). Many women reported needs: 63% had informational; 55%, psychosocial; and 53%, practical needs. High rates of INT patients with needs connected with a program within 2 weeks (92%). At 6 months, INT and UC women used patient-assistance programs at similar rates (75% v 76%; P = .54). Women with informational or psychosocial needs were more likely to receive help (relative risk [RR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.51 to 1.90 and RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.61, respectively).

CONCLUSION

INT and UC patients received high rates of adjuvant treatment regardless of trial assignment. Patients with breast cancer who connect to relevant patient assistance programs receive useful informational and psychosocial but not practical help.

Benchmarking and audit of breast units improves quality of care

Quality Indicators (QIs) are measures of health care quality that make use of readily available hospital inpatient administrative data. Assessment quality of care can be performed on different levels: national, regional, on a hospital basis or on an individual basis. It can be a mandatory or voluntary system. In all cases development of an adequate database for data extraction, and feedback of the findings is of paramount importance. In the present paper we performed a Medline search on "QIs and breast cancer" and "benchmarking and breast cancer care", and we have added some data from personal experience. The current data clearly show that the use of QIs for breast cancer care, regular internal and external audit of performance of breast units, and benchmarking are effective to improve quality of care. Adherence to guidelines improves markedly (particularly regarding adjuvant treatment) and there are data emerging showing that this results in a better outcome. As quality assurance benefits patients, it will be a challenge for the medical and hospital community to develop affordable quality control systems, which are not leading to excessive workload.

Organizational determinants of patients' experiences of care for breast, lung and colorectal cancers

Organizational characteristics in English NHS hospitals and the experiences of patients with three common cancers - breast, colorectal and lung - were examined using secondary data analyses. Two specific measures of satisfaction, Respect and Dignity, reflecting inpatient care, and Communication reflecting hospital outpatient care, were drawn from a national survey of cancer patients after first hospital treatment. They were compared at hospital level with hospital cancer service standards, and measures of hospital provision, each drawn from national surveys. Respect and Dignity was greater in hospitals with fewer complaints, slower admission procedures and a greater proportion of medicine consultants, for breast and colorectal cancers only. For breast cancer alone, Respect and Dignity was greater in hospitals achieving more participation in meetings by lead team members at the cancer unit level. For lung cancer alone, there were tumour-specific team organizational measures (relating to outpatient assessment) associated with Communication. However, the majority of recorded standards did not show associations, and there were occasional negative associations (dissatisfaction). The impact of organizational factors on patients may be examined through observational studies when experimental designs are not possible. Understanding how organizational factors affect quality of care for cancer patients can contribute to planning and management of cancer services.

Hospital differences in patient satisfaction with care for breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancers

BACKGROUND

We have investigated cancer patient satisfaction with care and the extent to which it varies between and within hospitals.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A national survey of cancer patients in England with questions in 10 different dimensions for four common cancers: breast, colorectal, lung and prostate (55,674 patients). We compared hospitals across tumour types, and against the national average.

RESULTS

Dissatisfaction was greater (p<0.001) in younger, female patients. Breast cancer patients expressed least, and prostate cancer patients expressed greatest dissatisfaction. Breast, colorectal and prostate cancers showed significant (p<0.001) pair-wise correlations for standardised satisfaction scores, particularly for in-hospital care. Summed hospital satisfaction scores showed significant associations across different dimensions of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patient satisfaction is measurably different between hospitals, as well as by tumour type. For many aspects of care there is evidence of systemic hospital-level factors that influence satisfaction as well as factors common to the care pathways experienced by individual patients. Factors amenable to clinical or managerial intervention deserve further investigation.