Cargando…

Quality indicators for cervical cancer care in Japan

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to propose a set of quality indicators (QIs) based on the clinical guidelines for cervical cancer treatment published by The Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and to assess adherence to standard-of-care as an index of the quality of care for cervical cancer in Japan. METHODS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Watanabe, Tomone, Mikami, Mikio, Katabuchi, Hidetaka, Kato, Shingo, Kaneuchi, Masanori, Takahashi, Masahiro, Nakai, Hidekatsu, Nagase, Satoru, Niikura, Hitoshi, Mandai, Masaki, Hirashima, Yasuyuki, Yanai, Hiroyuki, Yamagami, Wataru, Kamitani, Satoru, Higashi, Takahiro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology; Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6189432/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30207093
http://dx.doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e83
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: We aimed to propose a set of quality indicators (QIs) based on the clinical guidelines for cervical cancer treatment published by The Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and to assess adherence to standard-of-care as an index of the quality of care for cervical cancer in Japan. METHODS: A panel of clinical experts devised the QIs using a modified Delphi method. Adherence to each QI was evaluated using data from a hospital-based cancer registry of patients diagnosed in 2013, and linked with insurance claims data, between October 1, 2012, and December 31, 2014. All patients who received first-line treatment at the participating facility were included. The QI scores were communicated to participating hospitals, and additional data about the reasons for non-adherence were collected. RESULTS: In total, 297 hospitals participated, and the care provided to 15,163 cervical cancer patients was examined using 10 measurable QIs. The adherence rate ranged from 50.0% for ‘cystoscope or proctoscope for stage IVA’ to 98.8% for ‘chemotherapy using platinum for stage IVB’. Despite the variation in care, hospitals reported clinically valid reasons for more than half of the non-adherent cases. Clinically valid reasons accounted for 75%, 90.9%, 73.4%, 44.5%, and 88.1% of presented non-adherent cases respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed variations in pattern of care as well as an adherence to standards-of-care across Japan. Further assessment of the causes of variation and non-adherence can help identify areas where improvements are needed in patient care.