Bilimoria Karl Y, Bentrem David J, Lillemoe Keith D, Talamonti Mark S, Ko Clifford Y
Cancer Programs, American College of Surgeons, 633 N. St Clair St., Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Jun 16;101(12):848-59. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp107. Epub 2009 Jun 9.
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.
胰腺癌的治疗结果在不同医院之间差异很大。使用质量指标评估胰腺癌治疗有助于减少这种差异。然而,目前尚无有效的胰腺癌管理质量指标,且美国尚未对胰腺癌治疗质量进行综合评估。
从文献、共识指南以及对专家的访谈中确定潜在的质量指标。一个由20名胰腺癌专家组成的小组根据兰德/加州大学洛杉矶分校适宜性方法对潜在质量指标的有效性进行排名。排名被评定为有效(高或中度有效性)或无效。使用国家癌症数据库(2004 - 2005年)中1134家医院49065例患者的数据,评估患者和医院层面与有效指标的依从性以及医院层面依从性的综合指标。计算每个候选质量指标的汇总统计数据,以评估中位数排名和分布情况。
在确定的50个潜在质量指标中,43个被评定为有效(29个为高有效性,14个为中度有效性)。在这43个有效指标中,11个(25.6%)评估结构因素,19个(44.2%)评估临床护理过程,4个(9.3%)评估治疗适宜性,4个(9.3%)评估效率,5个(11.6%)评估结果。患者层面与单个指标的依从性范围为49.6%至97.2%,而医院层面与单个指标的依从性范围为6.8%至99.9%。用于制定综合评分的10个组成指标(每个指标计1分)中,大多数医院依从的指标不到一半(中位数评分 = 4;四分位间距 = 3 - 5)。
基于本研究制定的质量指标,美国胰腺癌治疗质量存在相当大的差异。医院可以使用这些指标来评估其提供的胰腺癌治疗,并识别潜在的质量改进机会。