Essential criteria for assessing the quality of cancer care: international experience

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Background. To retain guarantees for the provision of quality medical services in oncology, optimal tools of the system for monitoring medical activities are required to be further introduced in real practice. Analysis of the results of the selection of the most valid criteria for assessing the quality of medical activity is of significant scientific interest and contributes to the improvement of the organization of medical care.

The work aimed to review the international literature on the identification of control criteria for the quality of cancer care.

Materials and methods. The international experience is analyzed based on reliable sources of information obtained through the application of queries on the topic under study in the PubMed (Medline) database and Google search engine. Additional key phrases were used as and when required. About 45 of the most relevant information sources were selected.

Results. Various criteria for the quality and safety of medical activity in oncology are presented. Some general (universal) criteria for assessing the quality of medical activity, specific to individual nosologies, have been identified. The advanced international experience in the classification and identification of key quality criteria used in oncology in patients with the most frequently diagnosed cancer types in Russia has been generalized. The standardization and validation of new quality assessment criteria are priorities for subsequent scientific development.

Discussion and conclusions. During standardization, there has been a tendency to determine comprehensive parametric criteria for assessing quality and covering the entire scope of interdisciplinary medical care. To further improve the scientific and methodological support of control, it is advisable to develop medical methodologies for conducting clinical audits for various types of malignant neoplasms (ICD10: S00–96), considering specific indicators and requirements of regional healthcare system. The selection of the optimal, most valid, and informative indicators of the quality of medical activity and the establishment of digital standards for the quality of services are becoming an integral aspect of the general processes of improving clinical audit tools in oncological institutions.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Dmitry A. Andreev

Research Institute for Healthcare Organization and Medical Management of Moscow Healthcare Department

Author for correspondence.
Email: dmitry.email08@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0745-9474

Candidate of Medical Sciences, Leading Research Fellow, Scientific-Clinical Department, Research Institute for Healthcare Organization and Medical Management of Moscow Healthcare Department

Russian Federation, 115088, Moscow, Russian Federation

Aleksandr A. Zavyalov

Research Institute for Healthcare Organization and Medical Management of Moscow Healthcare Department

Email: azav06@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1825-1871

МD, PhD, DSc, Professor

Russian Federation, 115088, Moscow, Russian Federation

Asan Yu. Kashurnikov

Research Institute for Healthcare Organization and Medical Management of Moscow Healthcare Department

Email: sic4@ya.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3930-6878

MD, PhD

Russian Federation, 115088, Moscow, Russian Federation

Aleksey Yu. Dobrodeev

Cancer Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center

Email: dobrodeev@oncology.tomsk.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2748-0644

МD, PhD, DSc

Russian Federation, 634009, Tomsk, Russian Federation

References

  1. Torre LA, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends – an update. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25(1):16–27. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.
  2. Kaprin AD, Starinskiy VV, Petrova GV, editors. Zlokachestvennyye novoobrazovaniya v Rossii v 2018 godu (zabolevayemost' i smertnost'). Moscow: P.A. Hertsen Moscow Research Oncological Institute — a branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution Scientific Research Center for Radiology of the Russian Ministry of Health; 2019. (In Russ).
  3. Arutyunova NE, Arkhangelsky VN, Berkhamova SKh, et al. Osnovnyye pokazateli zdorov'ya naseleniya goroda Moskvy, deyatel'nost' meditsinskikh organizatsiy gosudarstvennoy sistemy zdravookhraneniya goroda Moskvy v 2019 godu. Moscow: Research Institute for Healthcare Organization and Medical Management of Moscow Healthcare Department; 2020 (In Russ).
  4. Merkow RP, Bilimoria KY, Ko CY. Surgical quality measurement: an evolving science. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(7):586–587. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.128.
  5. Alderson D, Cromwell D. Publication of surgeon-specific outcomes. Br J Surg. 2014;101(11):1335–1337. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9641.
  6. Berwick D, Fox DM. "Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care": Donabedian's Classic Article 50 Years Later. Milbank Q. 2016;94(2):237–241. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12189.
  7. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem. Fund Q. 1966;44(3):Suppl:166–206.
  8. Brook RH, McGlynn EA, Cleary PD. Quality of health care. Part 2: measuring quality of care. N. Engl. J. Med. 1996;335(13):966–970. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199609263351311.
  9. Bonte AS, Luyckx A, Wyckmans L, Trinh XB, van Dam PA. Quality indicators for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2019;45(4):528–537. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.10.051.
  10. Vijayakumar C, Maroju NK, Srinivasan K, Reddy KS. Clinical audit system as a quality improvement tool in the management of breast cancer. Int. J. Surg. 2016;35:44–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.09.011.
  11. Biganzoli L, Marotti L, Hart CD, Cataliotti L, Cutuli B, Kühn T, et al. Quality indicators in breast cancer care: An update from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2017;86:59–81. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.08.017.
  12. Salampessy BH, Bijlsma WR, van der Hijden E, Koolman X, Portrait FRM. On selecting quality indicators: preferences of patients with breast and colon cancers regarding hospital quality indicators. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2019;29(7):576–585. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009818.
  13. Islam M, Li YJ. Quality improvement in healthcare: the need for valid, reliable and efficient methods and indicators. Int. J. Qual. Health Care. 2019;31(7):495–496. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzz077.
  14. Rae C, Shah N, De Pauw S, Costa A, Barr RD. System performance indicators for adolescent and young adult cancer care and control: a scoping review. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2020;9(1):1–11. doi: 10.1089/jayao.2019.0069.
  15. Mellett C, O'Donovan A, Hayes C. The development of outcome key performance indicators for systemic anti-cancer therapy using a modified Delphi method. Eur. J. Cancer Care (Engl). 2020;29(4):e13240. doi: 10.1111/ecc.13240.
  16. Guarneri V, Pronzato P, Bertetto O, Roila F, Amunni G, Bortolami A, et al. Use of Electronic Administrative Databases to Measure Quality Indicators of Breast Cancer Care: Experience of Five Regional Oncology Networks in Italy. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020;16(2):e211–e220. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00466.
  17. Farshid G, Dhatrak D, Gilhotra A, Koszyca B, Nolan J. The impact of 2018 ASCO-CAP HER2 testing guidelines on breast cancer HER2 results. An audit of 2132 consecutive cases evaluated by immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization. Mod Pathol. 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41379-020-0555-7.
  18. Wang C, Li X, Su S, Wang X, Li J, Bao X, et al. Factors analysis on the use of key quality indicators for narrowing the gap of quality of care of breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):1099. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-6334-5.
  19. Kim ML, Matheson L, Garrard B, Francis M, Broad A, Malone J, et al. Use of clinical quality indicators to improve lung cancer care in a regional/rural network of health services. Aust. J. Rural Health. 2019;27(2):183–187. doi: 10.1111/ajr.12493.
  20. Fasola G, Menis J, Follador A, De Carlo E, Valent F, Aresu G, et al. Integrated care pathways in lung cancer: a quality improvement project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34(1):3–9. doi: 10.1017/S026646231700441X.
  21. Howington JA, Blum MG, Chang AC, Balekian AA, Murthy SC. Treatment of stage I and II non-small cell lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013;143(5 Suppl):e278S–e313S. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-2359.
  22. Rosenzweig KE, Chang JY, Chetty IJ, Decker RH, Ginsburg ME, Kestin LL, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria nonsurgical treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer: poor performance status or palliative intent. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2013;10(9):654–664. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.05.031.
  23. Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trials. Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. BMJ. 1995;311(7010):899–909.
  24. Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, Gallagher ER, Admane S, Jackson VA, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):733–742. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1000678.
  25. Mazzone PJ, Vachani A, Chang A, Detterbeck F, Cooke D, Howington J, et al. Quality indicators for the evaluation of patients with lung cancer. Chest. 2014;146(3):659–669. doi: 10.1378/chest.13-2900.
  26. Darling G, Malthaner R, Dickie J, McKnight L, Nhan C, Hunter A, et al. Quality indicators for non-small cell lung cancer operations with use of a modified Delphi consensus process. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2014;98(1):183–190. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.03.001.
  27. Wang X, Su S, Li S, Bao H, Zhang M, Liu D, et al. Development of quality indicators for non-small cell lung cancer care: a first step toward assessing and improving quality of cancer care in China. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):603. doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3602-0.
  28. Jakobsen E, Green A, Oesterlind K, Rasmussen TR, Iachina M, Palshof T. Nationwide quality improvement in lung cancer care: the role of the Danish Lung Cancer Group and Registry. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8(10):1238–1247. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3182a4070f.
  29. Schoenfeld P. Quality in Colorectal Cancer Screening with Colonoscopy. Gastrointest. Endosc. Clin. N. Am. 2020;30(3):541–551. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2020.02.014.
  30. Chilton A, Rutter M, editors. Quality assurance guidelines for colonoscopy. Sheffield, UK: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2011.
  31. Rees CJ, Thomas Gibson S, Rutter MD, et al. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut. 2016;65(12):1923–1929. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312044.
  32. Trautmann F, Reissfelder C, Pecqueux M, Weitz J, Schmitt J. Evidence-based quality standards improve prognosis in colon cancer care. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(9):1324–1330. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.05.013.
  33. Theile DE, Philpot S, Blake M, Harrington J, Youl PH. Outcomes following colorectal cancer surgery: Results from a population-based study in Queensland, Australia, using quality indicators. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2019;25(5):834–842. doi: 10.1111/jep.13087.
  34. Lund M, Trads M, Njor SH, Erichsen R, Andersen B. Quality indicators for screening colonoscopy and colonoscopist performance and the subsequent risk of interval colorectal cancer: a systematic review. JBI Database System. Rev. Implement. Rep. 2019;17(11):2265–2300. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003927.
  35. Parihar V, Sopena-Falco J, Leung E, Benz E, Cooney A, Keohane J, et al. R0 Resection Margin, A New Quality Measure in the Era of National Bowel Screening? Ir Med J. 2020;113(1):7.
  36. Mason MC, Chang GJ, Petersen LA, Sada YH, Tran Cao HS, Chai C, et al. National Quality Forum Colon Cancer Quality Metric Performance: How Are Hospitals Measuring Up? Ann. Surg. 2017;266(6):1013–1020. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002003.
  37. Besson A, Deftereos I, Chan S, Faragher IG, Kinsella R, Yeung JM. Understanding patient-reported outcome measures in colorectal cancer. Future Oncol. 2019;15(10):1135–1146. doi: 10.2217/fon-2018-0723.
  38. Keikes L, Koopman M, Tanis PJ, Lemmens VEPP, Punt CJA, van Oijen MGH. Evaluating the scientific basis of quality indicators in colorectal cancer care: A systematic review. Eur J Cancer. 2017;86:166–177. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.08.034.
  39. Keikes L, Koopman M, Stuiver MM, Lemmens VEPP, van Oijen MGH, Punt CJA. Practice variation on hospital level in the systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in The Netherlands: a population-based study. Acta Oncol. 2020;59(4):395–403. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2020.1722320.
  40. Nag N, Millar J, Davis ID, Costello S, Duthie JB, Mark S, et al. Development of Indicators to Assess Quality of Care for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(1):57–63. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.01.016.
  41. Sampurno F, Zheng J, Di Stefano L, Millar JL, Foster C, Fuedea F, et al. Quality Indicators for Global Benchmarking of Localized Prostate Cancer Management. J. Urol. 2018;200(2):319–326. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.071.
  42. Csanadi M, de Kok IM, Heijnsdijk EA, Anttila A, Heinävaara S, Pitter JG, et al. Key indicators of organized cancer screening programs: results from a Delphi study. J Med Screen. 2019;26(3):120–126. doi: 10.1177/0969141318820362

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2020 Eco-Vector


СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия  ПИ № ФС 77 - 86296 от 11.12.2023 г. 
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 80632 от 15.03.2021 г.