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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |