Cargando…

Acceptability of quality indicators for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer: results of an online survey

BACKGROUND: Measuring quality indicators (QI’s) is a tool to improve the quality of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability of 36 QI’s, defined after a literature search for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer. Relevant specialists in the field of interes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Luyckx, Annemie, Wyckmans, Leen, Bonte, Anne-Sophie, Trinh, Xuan Bich, van Dam, Peter A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7376904/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32703282
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-020-00999-3
_version_ 1783562122585702400
author Luyckx, Annemie
Wyckmans, Leen
Bonte, Anne-Sophie
Trinh, Xuan Bich
van Dam, Peter A.
author_facet Luyckx, Annemie
Wyckmans, Leen
Bonte, Anne-Sophie
Trinh, Xuan Bich
van Dam, Peter A.
author_sort Luyckx, Annemie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Measuring quality indicators (QI’s) is a tool to improve the quality of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability of 36 QI’s, defined after a literature search for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer. Relevant specialists in the field of interest were surveyed. METHODS: To quantify the opinions of these specialists, an online survey was sent out via mailing to members of gynaecological or oncological societies. The relevance of each QI was questioned on a scale from one to five (1 = irrelevant, 2 = less relevant, 3 = no opinion/neutral, 4 = relevant, 5 = very relevant). If a QI received a score of 4 or 5 in 65% or more of the answers, we state that the respondents consider this QI to be sufficiently relevant to use in daily practice. RESULTS: The survey was visited 238 times and resulted in 53 complete responses (29 Belgian, 24 other European countries). The majority of the specialists were gynaecologists (45%). Five of the 36 QI’s (13,9%) did not reach the cut-off of 65%: referral to a tertiary center, preoperative staging of endometrial cancer by MRI, preoperative staging of cervical cancer by positron-emission tomography, incorporation of intracavitary brachytherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer, reporting ASA and WHO score for each patient. After removing the 5 QI’s that were not considered as relevant by the specialists and 3 additional 3 QI’s that we were considered to be superfluous, we obtained an optimized QI list. CONCLUSION: As QI’s gain importance in gynecological oncology, their use can only be of value if they are universally interpreted in the same manner. We propose an optimized list of 28 QI’s for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer which responders of our survey found relevant. Further validation is needed to finalize and define a set of QI’s that can be used in future studies, audits and benchmarking.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7376904
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73769042020-08-04 Acceptability of quality indicators for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer: results of an online survey Luyckx, Annemie Wyckmans, Leen Bonte, Anne-Sophie Trinh, Xuan Bich van Dam, Peter A. BMC Womens Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Measuring quality indicators (QI’s) is a tool to improve the quality of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability of 36 QI’s, defined after a literature search for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer. Relevant specialists in the field of interest were surveyed. METHODS: To quantify the opinions of these specialists, an online survey was sent out via mailing to members of gynaecological or oncological societies. The relevance of each QI was questioned on a scale from one to five (1 = irrelevant, 2 = less relevant, 3 = no opinion/neutral, 4 = relevant, 5 = very relevant). If a QI received a score of 4 or 5 in 65% or more of the answers, we state that the respondents consider this QI to be sufficiently relevant to use in daily practice. RESULTS: The survey was visited 238 times and resulted in 53 complete responses (29 Belgian, 24 other European countries). The majority of the specialists were gynaecologists (45%). Five of the 36 QI’s (13,9%) did not reach the cut-off of 65%: referral to a tertiary center, preoperative staging of endometrial cancer by MRI, preoperative staging of cervical cancer by positron-emission tomography, incorporation of intracavitary brachytherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer, reporting ASA and WHO score for each patient. After removing the 5 QI’s that were not considered as relevant by the specialists and 3 additional 3 QI’s that we were considered to be superfluous, we obtained an optimized QI list. CONCLUSION: As QI’s gain importance in gynecological oncology, their use can only be of value if they are universally interpreted in the same manner. We propose an optimized list of 28 QI’s for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer which responders of our survey found relevant. Further validation is needed to finalize and define a set of QI’s that can be used in future studies, audits and benchmarking. BioMed Central 2020-07-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7376904/ /pubmed/32703282 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-020-00999-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Luyckx, Annemie
Wyckmans, Leen
Bonte, Anne-Sophie
Trinh, Xuan Bich
van Dam, Peter A.
Acceptability of quality indicators for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer: results of an online survey
title Acceptability of quality indicators for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer: results of an online survey
title_full Acceptability of quality indicators for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer: results of an online survey
title_fullStr Acceptability of quality indicators for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer: results of an online survey
title_full_unstemmed Acceptability of quality indicators for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer: results of an online survey
title_short Acceptability of quality indicators for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer: results of an online survey
title_sort acceptability of quality indicators for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer: results of an online survey
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7376904/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32703282
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-020-00999-3
work_keys_str_mv AT luyckxannemie acceptabilityofqualityindicatorsforthemanagementofendometrialcervicalandovariancancerresultsofanonlinesurvey
AT wyckmansleen acceptabilityofqualityindicatorsforthemanagementofendometrialcervicalandovariancancerresultsofanonlinesurvey
AT bonteannesophie acceptabilityofqualityindicatorsforthemanagementofendometrialcervicalandovariancancerresultsofanonlinesurvey
AT trinhxuanbich acceptabilityofqualityindicatorsforthemanagementofendometrialcervicalandovariancancerresultsofanonlinesurvey
AT vandampetera acceptabilityofqualityindicatorsforthemanagementofendometrialcervicalandovariancancerresultsofanonlinesurvey