Breast Cancer Care Quality Indicators in Spain: A Systematic Review

Maes‐Carballo, Marta; Gómez-Fandiño, Yolanda; Estrada-López, Carlos Roberto; Reinoso-Hermida, Ayla; Khan, Khalid S.; Martín-Díaz, Manuel; Bueno‐Cavanillas, Aurora

doi:10.3390/ijerph18126411

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, a set of QIs were identified in a Spanish study that served as a basis of strategy for benchmarking oncology services across Spanish hospitals to improve quality of care. 15 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13,14 Similarly, a set of QIs were identified in a Spanish study that served as a basis of strategy for benchmarking oncology services across Spanish hospitals to improve quality of care. 15 In a Norwegian study, clinical breast cancer registry data from 2012 to 2016 were used to estimate QIs. Increased compliance to recommended treatment has been observed during the registry years.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Quality Indicators of Breast Cancer Management at a Tertiary Cancer Center in Nepal

Baral

Silwal

Shrestha

et al. 2022

JCO Global Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE Breast cancer is the second commonest cancer among female in Nepal. This is our first attempt to audit breast cancer management in our institute and compare with standard quality indicators (QIs) available. METHODS The retrospective study included 104 female patients with breast cancer who had taken treatment at Bhaktapur Cancer Hospital in 1 year. Participants were selected on the basis of convenience sampling. Of 33 QIs in breast cancer management according to European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists guidelines, 19 QIs were chosen relevant to our setup. These QIs were calculated for all patients and compared with the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists standard target. Frequencies and percentages were calculated and presented in tables. Binomial 95% of the rates for QI adherence were also calculated for each QI. RESULTS One hundred four patients had a median age of 47.5 years (range 24-70 years). Applicable QIs were in the range of 5-15 with a mean of 9.66 per patient. Of 19 evaluable QIs, very high adherence rates were observed in six QIs, high adherence in three Qis, and low adherences in 10 QIs. High adherence rates were for QI 5 and QI 10a, which were 88.46% and 94.73%, respectively. The low compliance was for QI 1, QI 4a, QI 8, QI 9d, QI 10b, QI 11a, QI 11b, QI 13b, QI 13e, and 14b, which were 53.84%, 78.21%, 0%, 83.16%, 76.92%, 36.0%, 33.33%, 4.76%, 30.55%, and 10.81%, respectively. CONCLUSION There are several QIs that have low levels of adherence in our setting and suggest that there is significant room for improvement. We will be continuing auditing these QIs regularly to improve our quality of care.

show abstract

“…Similarly, a set of QIs were identified in a Spanish study that served as a basis of strategy for benchmarking oncology services across Spanish hospitals to improve quality of care. 15 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Quality Indicators of Breast Cancer Management at a Tertiary Cancer Center in Nepal

Baral

Silwal

Shrestha

et al. 2022

JCO Global Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the 2020 Global Cancer Burden data released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the number of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases in Chinese women surpassed lung cancer for the first time, making breast cancer the leading newly diagnosed cancer among women in China [1]. Many countries have established national systems using a framework of processes and outcome indicators to monitor the performance of healthcare institutions to improve breast cancer treatment [2,3]. For instance, under the leadership of the Dutch National Breast Cancer Working Group (NABON) and Breast Cancer Audit (NBCA), the Netherlands developed a set of indicators to assess the quality of breast cancer treatment [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Urban Resident Basic Medical Insurance 2. Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance 3. New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Process Indicators Outshine Outcome Measures: Assessing Hospital Quality of Care in Breast Cancer Treatment

Liu,

Guo,

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Reporting the results of quality indicators can narrow the gap in the quality of care between hospitals. While most studies rely on outcome indicators , they may not accurately measure the quality of care. Process indicators are not only strongly associated with treatment outcomes, but are also more sensitive to whether patients are treated accurately, enabling timely intervention. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether process indicators can provide a more reasonable assessment of evaluating hospital quality of care compared to outcome indicators. Methods: Data were sourced from the Specific Disease Medical Service Quality Management and Control System in China. A total of 113,942 patients with breast cancer treated in 298 hospitals between January 2019 and April 2023 were included in this study. The rankability of 11 process indicators was calculated and used as a weight to create a new composite indicator. The composite indicators and outcome measures were compared using the O/E ratio categories. Finally, in order to determine the impact of different years on the results, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using bootstrap sampling. Results: The rankability (ρ) values of the eleven process indicators showed significant differences, with the highest ρ value for preoperative cytological or histological examination before surgery (0.919). The ρ value for the outcome indicator was 0.011. The rankability-weighting method yielded a comprehensive score (ρ = 0.883). The comparison with categorical results of the outcome indicator has different performance classifications for 113 hospitals (37.92%) for composite 1 scores and 140 (46.98%) for preoperative cytological or histological examination before surgery. Conclusion: Process indicators are more appropriate than outcome indicators for assessing the quality of hospital breast cancer care, which may contribute to quality improvement efforts.

show abstract

“…Healthcare management of complex diseases, such as most gynecological and obstetric diseases, is becoming more intricate and therefore must be based on the best evidence, with the highest standards in quality of care and patient safety and aim to maximize patients’ value and expectations [ 27 ]. Maes-Carballo et al [ 28 ] report significant heterogeneity in the quality-of-care indicators proposed to assess the quality of care in breast cancer, making comparisons of results across populations or hospitals difficult, and highlighting relevant discrepancies among the studied integrated healthcare processes and clinical pathways. Quality indicators should be updated as medical care technology provides new alternatives for the care of patients with complex diseases, such as breast cancer.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%