Cargando…

Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND: Not all cancer patients receive state-of-the-art care and providing regular feedback to clinicians might reduce this problem. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of various data sources in providing feedback on the quality of cancer care. METHODS: Published clinical pract...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Coory, Michael, Thompson, Bridie, Baade, Peter, Fritschi, Lin
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695440/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19473504
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-84
_version_ 1782168194139553792
author Coory, Michael
Thompson, Bridie
Baade, Peter
Fritschi, Lin
author_facet Coory, Michael
Thompson, Bridie
Baade, Peter
Fritschi, Lin
author_sort Coory, Michael
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Not all cancer patients receive state-of-the-art care and providing regular feedback to clinicians might reduce this problem. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of various data sources in providing feedback on the quality of cancer care. METHODS: Published clinical practice guidelines were used to obtain a list of processes-of-care of interest to clinicians. These were assigned to one of four data categories according to their availability and the marginal cost of using them for feedback. RESULTS: Only 8 (3%) of 243 processes-of-care could be measured using population-based registry or administrative inpatient data (lowest cost). A further 119 (49%) could be measured using a core clinical registry, which contains information on important prognostic factors (e.g., clinical stage, physiological reserve, hormone-receptor status). Another 88 (36%) required an expanded clinical registry or medical record review; mainly because they concerned long-term management of disease progression (recurrences and metastases) and 28 (11.5%) required patient interview or audio-taping of consultations because they involved information sharing between clinician and patient. CONCLUSION: The advantages of population-based cancer registries and administrative inpatient data are wide coverage and low cost. The disadvantage is that they currently contain information on only a few processes-of-care. In most jurisdictions, clinical cancer registries, which can be used to report on many more processes-of-care, do not cover smaller hospitals. If we are to provide feedback about all patients, not just those in larger academic hospitals with the most developed data systems, then we need to develop sustainable population-based data systems that capture information on prognostic factors at the time of initial diagnosis and information on management of disease progression.
format Text
id pubmed-2695440
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26954402009-06-12 Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines Coory, Michael Thompson, Bridie Baade, Peter Fritschi, Lin BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Not all cancer patients receive state-of-the-art care and providing regular feedback to clinicians might reduce this problem. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of various data sources in providing feedback on the quality of cancer care. METHODS: Published clinical practice guidelines were used to obtain a list of processes-of-care of interest to clinicians. These were assigned to one of four data categories according to their availability and the marginal cost of using them for feedback. RESULTS: Only 8 (3%) of 243 processes-of-care could be measured using population-based registry or administrative inpatient data (lowest cost). A further 119 (49%) could be measured using a core clinical registry, which contains information on important prognostic factors (e.g., clinical stage, physiological reserve, hormone-receptor status). Another 88 (36%) required an expanded clinical registry or medical record review; mainly because they concerned long-term management of disease progression (recurrences and metastases) and 28 (11.5%) required patient interview or audio-taping of consultations because they involved information sharing between clinician and patient. CONCLUSION: The advantages of population-based cancer registries and administrative inpatient data are wide coverage and low cost. The disadvantage is that they currently contain information on only a few processes-of-care. In most jurisdictions, clinical cancer registries, which can be used to report on many more processes-of-care, do not cover smaller hospitals. If we are to provide feedback about all patients, not just those in larger academic hospitals with the most developed data systems, then we need to develop sustainable population-based data systems that capture information on prognostic factors at the time of initial diagnosis and information on management of disease progression. BioMed Central 2009-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC2695440/ /pubmed/19473504 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-84 Text en Copyright © 2009 Coory et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Coory, Michael
Thompson, Bridie
Baade, Peter
Fritschi, Lin
Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines
title Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines
title_full Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines
title_fullStr Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines
title_full_unstemmed Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines
title_short Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines
title_sort utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695440/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19473504
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-84
work_keys_str_mv AT coorymichael utilityofroutinedatasourcesforfeedbackonthequalityofcancercareanassessmentbasedonclinicalpracticeguidelines
AT thompsonbridie utilityofroutinedatasourcesforfeedbackonthequalityofcancercareanassessmentbasedonclinicalpracticeguidelines
AT baadepeter utilityofroutinedatasourcesforfeedbackonthequalityofcancercareanassessmentbasedonclinicalpracticeguidelines
AT fritschilin utilityofroutinedatasourcesforfeedbackonthequalityofcancercareanassessmentbasedonclinicalpracticeguidelines