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.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Impact Factor: 12.58). 07/2009; 101(12):848-59. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp107
Source: PubMed


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Mark S Talamonti, Aug 04, 2014
  • Source
    • "Both national and international developments regarding diagnostic strategies and treatment options, and the participation of various medical disciplines mandate uniform evidence-based guidelines on pancreatic and periampullary cancer. Quality indicators in pancreatic cancer care are scarce and mainly focus on pancreatectomy case volume [9]. However, guideline compliance in the management of pancreatic cancer has been associated with "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: We evaluated national compliance to selected quality indicators from the Dutch multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline on pancreatic and periampullary carcinoma and identified areas for improvement. Methods: Compliance to 3 selected quality indicators from the guideline was evaluated before and after implementation of the guideline in 2011: 1) adjuvant chemotherapy after tumor resection for pancreatic carcinoma, 2) discussion of the patient within a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting and 3) a maximum 3-week interval between final MDT meeting and start of treatment. Results: In total 5086 patients with pancreatic or periampullary carcinoma were included. In 2010, 2522 patients were included and in 2012, 2564 patients. 1) Use of adjuvant chemotherapy following resection for pancreatic carcinoma increased significantly from 45% (120 out of 268) in 2010 to 54% (182 out of 336) in 2012 which was mainly caused by an increase in patients aged <75 years. 2) In 2012, 64% (896 of 1396) of patients suspected of a pancreatic or periampullary carcinoma was discussed within a MDT meeting which was higher in patients aged <75 years and patients starting treatment with curative intent. 3) In 2012, the recommended 3 weeks between final MDT meeting and start of treatment was met in 39% (141 of 363) of patients which was not influenced by patient and tumor characteristics. Conclusion: Compliance to three selected quality indicators in pancreatic cancer care was low in 2012. Areas for improvement were identified. Future compliance will be investigated through structured audit and feedback from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2015 · Pancreatology
  • Source
    • "The best outcome for patients with any of the malignant tumors in the present cohort is early, radical surgical removal, that is, before spread of tumor cells, as illustrated by the survival curve for R0N0 resected adenocarcinoma (Figure 2). Several quality indicators are focused on the diagnostic process , one of them, applicable to the whole preoperative work-up, is time, as published by the ACSPCQD Expert Panel (quality indicator 26) [7]: if a patient is to receive treatment, then the time from diagnosis to surgery or first treatment should be less than 2 months. The local limit for this time interval is 3 weeks. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective. The first objective of the present study was to identify opportunities of improvement for clinical practice, assessed by local quality indicators, then to analyze possible reasons why we did not reach defined treatment quality measures. The second objective was to characterize patients, considered unresectable according to present criteria, for future arrangement of interventional studies with improved patient selection. Material and methods. Prospective observational cohort study from October 2008 to December 2010 of patients referred to the authors' institution with suspected pancreatic or periampullary neoplasm. Results. Of 330 patients, 135 underwent surgery, 195 did not, 129 due to unresectable malignancies. The rest had benign lesions. Perioperative morbidity rate was 32.6%, mortality 0.7%. Radical resection (R0) was obtained in 23 (41.8%) of 55 patients operated for pancreatic adenocarcinoma and 6.3% underwent reconstructive vascular surgery. Diagnostic failure/delay resulted in unresectable carcinoma, primarily misconceived as serous cystic adenoma in two patients. One resected lesion turned out to be focal autoimmune pancreatitis. One case with misdiagnosed cancer was revised to be a pseudoaneurysm. Palliative treatment was offered to 144 patients with malignant tumors, 62 due to locally advanced disease and all pancreatic adenocarcinomas. Conclusions. Quality improvement opportunities were identified for patient selection and surgical technique: Too few patients underwent reconstructive vascular surgery. The most important quality indicators are those securing resectional, radical (R0) surgery. Altogether 143 patients (57.9%) of those with malignant tumors were found unresectable, most of these patients are eligible for inclusion in future interventional studies with curative and/or palliative intention.
    Full-text · Article · May 2013 · Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology
  • Source
    • "initiated the ORYX programme for Hospitals (National Hospital Quality Measures ), a performance measurement and improvement initiative for hospital accreditation (Epstein 1998). The core measures for cancer patients (IOM 2002; McGory et al. 2006; Leonardi et al. 2007; Chung et al. 2008; Miyashita et al. 2008; Bilimoria et al. 2009) are thus standardised as a set of valid, reliable and science-based quality-of-care indicators developed and used for cancer patients. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: CHIEN T-W., LIN Y-F., CHANG C-H., TSAI M-T. & UEN Y-H. (2012) European Journal of Cancer Care Using a bubble chart to enhance adherence to quality-of-care guidelines for colorectal cancer patients This study examines whether a higher rate of physician adherence to quality-of-care indicators for colorectal cancer patients is associated with improved survival and using a bubble chart to help interpret physician performance. A set of 13 core measures was used to evaluate the quality of care in 708 colorectal cancer patients treated from 2004 to 2007 at a hospital in Taiwan. A 100% adherence standard was used to measure the relationship of adherence to patient survival. Each indicator assigned by each cancer stage was dichotomously coded. The associations between the adherence and survival rates and demographic characteristics were assessed using Cox's proportional hazard regression. Physician adherence to core indicators was plotted using a bubble chart to motivate physicians' performance adhering to quality-of-care guidelines for colorectal cancer patients. The 100% adherence rate criterion contributed to a relatively low hazard ratio of 0.36 (95% confidence interval, 0.14–0.85; P= 0.02). The association between the adherence rate and survival indicated significant improvements for stage III patients compared with stage I patients. A graphical representation of bubble charts helped to monitor physician performance, which improved the adherence rate to quality-of-care guidelines for colorectal cancer patients.
    Full-text · Article · Feb 2012 · European Journal of Cancer Care
Show more