Suppr超能文献

基于正式制定的质量指标对美国胰腺癌护理情况的评估。

Assessment of pancreatic cancer care in the United States based on formally developed quality indicators.

作者信息

Bilimoria Karl Y, Bentrem David J, Lillemoe Keith D, Talamonti Mark S, Ko Clifford Y

机构信息

Cancer Programs, American College of Surgeons, 633 N. St Clair St., Chicago, IL 60611, USA.

出版信息

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Jun 16;101(12):848-59. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp107. Epub 2009 Jun 9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

摘要

背景

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。

方法

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。

结果

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)。

结论

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。

相似文献

1
Assessment of pancreatic cancer care in the United States based on formally developed quality indicators.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Jun 16;101(12):848-59. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp107. Epub 2009 Jun 9.
2
National assessment of melanoma care using formally developed quality indicators.
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 10;27(32):5445-51. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.9965. Epub 2009 Oct 13.
3
Quality pancreatic cancer care: it's still mostly about volume.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Jun 16;101(12):837-8. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp138. Epub 2009 Jun 9.
4
Rankings versus reality in pancreatic cancer surgery: a real-world comparison.
HPB (Oxford). 2014 Jun;16(6):528-33. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12171. Epub 2013 Nov 7.
5
Assessment of emergency general surgery care based on formally developed quality indicators.
Surgery. 2017 Aug;162(2):397-407. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2017.03.025. Epub 2017 Jun 21.
6
Monitoring quality of care for patients with pancreatic cancer: a modified Delphi consensus.
HPB (Oxford). 2019 Apr;21(4):444-455. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2018.08.016. Epub 2018 Oct 11.
8
Development of quality indicators for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Nov 15;98(22):1623-33. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djj438.
9
Building quality indicators to improve care for adults with congenital heart disease.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Dec 10;62(23):2244-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.07.099. Epub 2013 Sep 27.
10
Quality indicators in bariatric surgery: improving quality of care.
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2006 Jul-Aug;2(4):423-9; discussion 429-30. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2006.05.005.

引用本文的文献

2
Transatlantic differences in the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: an international multi-registry analysis.
Surg Endosc. 2024 Dec;38(12):7099-7111. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-11161-7. Epub 2024 Sep 28.
3
Return to Intended Oncological Therapy: State of the Art and Perspectives.
Curr Oncol Rep. 2024 Nov;26(11):1420-1430. doi: 10.1007/s11912-024-01594-7. Epub 2024 Sep 25.
5
ASO Author Reflections: Improving Outcomes and Minimizing Variability in Pancreatic Cancer Care: A Study of Ontario and the United States.
Ann Surg Oncol. 2024 Mar;31(3):1937-1938. doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-14463-7. Epub 2023 Oct 22.
6
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Real World Evidence of Care Delivery in AccessHope Data.
J Pers Med. 2023 Sep 15;13(9):1377. doi: 10.3390/jpm13091377.
7
Trends in and Prognostic Significance of Time to Treatment in Pancreatic Cancer: A Population-Based Study.
Ann Surg Oncol. 2023 Dec;30(13):8610-8620. doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-14221-9. Epub 2023 Aug 25.
8
Textbook Outcomes in Liver Surgery: a Systematic Review.
J Gastrointest Surg. 2023 Jun;27(6):1277-1289. doi: 10.1007/s11605-023-05673-1. Epub 2023 Apr 17.
10
Clinical role of ambulatory reflux monitoring in PPI non-responders: recommendation statements.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022 Oct;56(8):1274-1283. doi: 10.1111/apt.17180. Epub 2022 Aug 16.

本文引用的文献

1
Imaging studies for low back pain.
J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2008;22(4):306-11. doi: 10.1080/15360280802537332.
2
Effect of hospital volume on margin status after pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer.
J Am Coll Surg. 2008 Oct;207(4):510-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.04.033. Epub 2008 Jun 30.
3
Effect of hospital type and volume on lymph node evaluation for gastric and pancreatic cancer.
Arch Surg. 2008 Jul;143(7):671-8; discussion 678. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.143.7.671.
6
Systematic review: the evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care.
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jan 15;148(2):111-23. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-2-200801150-00006.
7
The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States.
Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 Mar;15(3):683-90. doi: 10.1245/s10434-007-9747-3. Epub 2008 Jan 9.
8
Eulogy for a quality measure.
N Engl J Med. 2007 Sep 20;357(12):1175-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp078102.
9
National failure to operate on early stage pancreatic cancer.
Ann Surg. 2007 Aug;246(2):173-80. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3180691579.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验