Jagsi Reshma, Schipper Matthew, Mietzel Melissa, Pandya Raveena, Moran Jean M, Matuszak Martha, Vicini Frank, Jolly Shruti, Paximadis Peter, Mancini Brandon, Griffith Kent, Hayman James, Pierce Lori
University of Michigan, Medical School, Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
University of Michigan, School of Public Health, Biostatistics, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022 Jun 1;113(2):257-265. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.01.048. Epub 2022 Feb 4.
Numerous quality measures have been proposed in radiation oncology, and initiatives to improve access to high-complexity care, quality, and equity are needed. We describe the design and evaluate effect of a voluntary statewide collaboration for quality improvement in radiation oncology initiated a decade ago.
We evaluate compliance before and since implementation of annual metrics for quality improvement, using an observational data set with information from more than 20,000 patients treated in the 28 participating radiation oncology practices. At thrice-yearly meetings, experts have spoken regarding trends within the field and inspired discussions regarding potential targets for quality improvement. Blinded data on practices at various sites have been provided. Following Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines, we describe the approach and measures the program has implemented. To evaluate effect, we compare compliance at baseline and now with active measures using mixed effects regression models with site-level random effects.
Compliance has increased, including use of guideline-concordant hypofractionated radiation therapy, doses to targets or normal tissues, motion management, and consistency in delineating and naming contoured structures (a precondition for quality evaluation). For example, use of guideline-concordant hypofractionation for breast cancer increased from 47% to 97%, adherence to target coverage goals and heart dose limits for dose increased from 46% to 86%, motion assessment in patients with lung cancer increased from 52% to 94%, and use of standard nomenclature increased from 53% to 82% for lung patients and from 80% to 94% for breast patients (all P < .001).
Although observational analysis cannot fully exclude secular trends, contextual data revealing slow uptake of best practices elsewhere in the United States and qualitative feedback from participants suggests that this initiative has improved the consistency, efficiency, and quality of radiation oncology care in its member practices and may be a model for oncology quality improvement more generally.
放射肿瘤学领域已提出众多质量指标,且需要采取举措来改善获得高复杂性护理、质量及公平性的机会。我们描述了十年前发起的一项全州范围内自愿参与的放射肿瘤学质量改进合作项目的设计并评估其效果。
我们利用一个观察数据集评估了质量改进年度指标实施前后的合规情况,该数据集包含了28家参与的放射肿瘤学机构中超过20000名接受治疗患者的信息。在每季度一次的会议上,专家们就该领域的趋势发表了讲话,并引发了关于质量改进潜在目标的讨论。已提供了不同机构的盲态数据。遵循卓越质量改进报告标准指南,我们描述了该项目实施的方法和措施。为评估效果,我们使用具有机构层面随机效应的混合效应回归模型,将基线时和现在的合规情况与积极措施进行比较。
合规情况有所改善,包括使用符合指南的低分割放射治疗、靶区或正常组织的剂量、运动管理以及勾画和命名轮廓结构的一致性(质量评估的前提条件)。例如,乳腺癌使用符合指南的低分割放疗的比例从47%提高到了97%,剂量方面对靶区覆盖目标和心脏剂量限制的依从性从46%提高到了86%,肺癌患者中的运动评估从52%提高到了94%,肺癌患者使用标准命名法的比例从53%提高到了82%,乳腺癌患者从80%提高到了94%(所有P <.001)。
尽管观察性分析不能完全排除长期趋势,但美国其他地方显示最佳实践采用缓慢的背景数据以及参与者的定性反馈表明,该举措提高了其成员机构放射肿瘤学护理的一致性、效率和质量,并且可能更广泛地成为肿瘤学质量改进的典范。