Suppr超能文献

肿瘤学质量实践倡议(QOPI)指标在肿瘤学研究员、高级实践提供者和主治医生之间的依从性比较。

Comparison of Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) Measure Adherence Between Oncology Fellows, Advanced Practice Providers, and Attending Physicians.

作者信息

Zhu Jason, Zhang Tian, Shah Radhika, Kamal Arif H, Kelley Michael J

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.

Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

出版信息

J Cancer Educ. 2015 Dec;30(4):774-8. doi: 10.1007/s13187-015-0798-z.

Abstract

Quality improvement measures are uniformly applied to all oncology providers, regardless of their roles. Little is known about differences in adherence to these measures between oncology fellows, advance practice providers (APP), and attending physicians. We investigated conformance across Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) measures for oncology fellows, advance practice providers, and attending physicians at the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (DVAMC). Using data collected from the Spring 2012 and 2013 QOPI cycles, we abstracted charts of patients and separated them based on their primary provider. Descriptive statistics and the chi-square test were calculated for each QOPI measure between fellows, advanced practice providers (APPs), and attending physicians. A total of 169 patients were reviewed. Of these, 31 patients had a fellow, 39 had an APP, and 99 had an attending as their primary oncology provider. Fellows and attending physicians performed similarly on 90 of 94 QOPI metrics. High-performing metrics included several core QOPI measures including documenting consent for chemotherapy, recommending adjuvant chemotherapy when appropriate, and prescribing serotonin antagonists when prescribing emetogenic chemotherapies. Low-performing metrics included documentation of treatment summary and taking action to address problems with emotional well-being by the second office visit. Attendings documented the plan for oral chemotherapy more often (92 vs. 63%, P=0.049). However, after the chart audit, we found that fellows actually documented the plan for oral chemotherapy 88% of the time (p=0.73). APPs and attendings performed similarly on 88 of 90 QOPI measures. The quality of oncology care tends to be similar between attendings and fellows overall; some of the significant differences do not remain significant after a second manual chart review, highlighting that the use of manual data collection for QOPI analysis is an imperfect system, and there may be significant inter-observer variability.

摘要

质量改进措施统一应用于所有肿瘤学医疗服务提供者,无论其角色如何。关于肿瘤学住院医师、高级执业提供者(APP)和主治医生在遵守这些措施方面的差异,我们知之甚少。我们调查了达勒姆退伍军人事务医疗中心(DVAMC)的肿瘤学住院医师、高级执业提供者和主治医生在《肿瘤学质量实践倡议》(QOPI)措施方面的一致性。利用从2012年春季和2013年QOPI周期收集的数据,我们提取了患者病历,并根据其主要医疗服务提供者进行分类。对住院医师、高级执业提供者(APP)和主治医生之间的每项QOPI措施进行描述性统计和卡方检验。共审查了169例患者。其中,31例患者的主要肿瘤学医疗服务提供者是住院医师,39例是APP,99例是主治医生。在94项QOPI指标中的90项上,住院医师和主治医生的表现相似。表现出色的指标包括几项核心QOPI措施,如记录化疗同意书、在适当情况下推荐辅助化疗,以及在开具致吐性化疗药物时开具5-羟色胺拮抗剂。表现不佳的指标包括治疗总结的记录,以及在第二次门诊就诊时采取行动解决情绪健康问题。主治医生更常记录口服化疗计划(92%对63%,P = 0.049)。然而,在病历审核后,我们发现住院医师实际上88%的时间记录了口服化疗计划(P = 0.73)。在90项QOPI措施中的88项上,APP和主治医生的表现相似。总体而言,主治医生和住院医师提供的肿瘤学护理质量趋于相似;一些显著差异在第二次人工病历审查后不再显著,这突出表明使用人工数据收集进行QOPI分析是一个不完善的系统,并且可能存在显著的观察者间差异。

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