Assessment of Pancreatic Cancer Care in the United States Based on Formally Developed Quality Indicators

Cancer Programs, American College of Surgeons, 633 N. St Clair St., Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment (Impact Factor: 15.16). 07/2009; 101(12):848-59. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp107
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Pancreatic cancer outcomes vary considerably among hospitals. Assessing pancreatic cancer care by using quality indicators could help reduce this variability. However, valid quality indicators are not currently available for pancreatic cancer management, and a composite assessment of the quality of pancreatic cancer care in the United States has not been done.
Potential quality indicators were identified from the literature, consensus guidelines, and interviews with experts. A panel of 20 pancreatic cancer experts ranked potential quality indicators for validity based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. The rankings were rated as valid (high or moderate validity) or not valid. Adherence with valid indicators at both the patient and the hospital levels and a composite measure of adherence at the hospital level were assessed using data from the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2005) for 49 065 patients treated at 1134 hospitals. Summary statistics were calculated for each individual candidate quality indicator to assess the median ranking and distribution.
Of the 50 potential quality indicators identified, 43 were rated as valid (29 as high and 14 as moderate validity). Of the 43 valid indicators, 11 (25.6%) assessed structural factors, 19 (44.2%) assessed clinical processes of care, four (9.3%) assessed treatment appropriateness, four (9.3%) assessed efficiency, and five (11.6%) assessed outcomes. Patient-level adherence with individual indicators ranged from 49.6% to 97.2%, whereas hospital-level adherence with individual indicators ranged from 6.8% to 99.9%. Of the 10 component indicators (contributing 1 point each) that were used to develop the composite score, most hospitals were adherent with fewer than half of the indicators (median score = 4; interquartile range = 3-5).
Based on the quality indicators developed in this study, there is considerable variability in the quality of pancreatic cancer care in the United States. Hospitals can use these indicators to evaluate the pancreatic cancer care they provide and to identify potential quality improvement opportunities.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Organizations are trying to address the high cost of "specialty" medications that treat conditions such as cancer, hepatitis C, and multiple sclerosis. While comprising less than 1% of U.S. prescriptions, these drugs now account for 27% of pharmacy spending.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Treatment of pancreatic cancer is increasingly multimodal, with patients receiving chemotherapy, radiation, and surgical extirpation in hope of long-term cure. There is ongoing debate over the timing, sequence, and necessity of these treatments as they pertain to the spectrum of local-regional disease. Current guidelines support a neoadjuvant strategy in patients with locally advanced and borderline resectable disease. Although there is currently no high-level evidence to recommend neoadjuvant therapy for all patients, there are data to suggest that wider application of neoadjuvant therapy may be beneficial. Random-assignment prospective trials are ongoing. In this review we examine the literature addressing a neoadjuvant approach to potentially resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic cancer and highlight the outcomes of preoperative emergence of latent metastatic disease, attempted resection rates, margin negative resection rates, and pathologic response to treatment. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Seminars in Oncology 02/2015; 42(1):86-97. DOI:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2014.12.008 · 3.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diverticulitis is one of the leading indications for elective colon resection. Surgeons are trained to offer elective operations after a few episodes of diverticulitis in order to prevent future recurrences and potential emergency. However, most emergency surgery happens during the initial presentation. After recovery from an episode, much of the subsequent management of diverticulitis occurs in the outpatient setting, rendering inpatient "episode counting" a poor measure of the severity or burden of disease. Evidence also suggests that the risk of recurrence of diverticulitis is small and similar with or without an operation. Accordingly, contemporary evaluations of the epidemiologic patterns of treatments for diverticulitis have failed to demonstrate that the substantial rise in elective surgery over the last few decades has been successful at preventing emergency surgery at a population level. Multiple professional societies are calling to "individualize" decisions for elective colectomy and there is an international focus on "appropriate" indications for surgery. The rethinking of elective colectomy should come from a patient-centered approach that considers the risks of recurrence, quality of life, patient wishes and experiences about surgical and medical treatment options as well as operative morbidity and risks.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 11/2014; 20(44):16609-16614. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v20.i44.16609 · 2.43 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Aug 4, 2014