Cargando…
Quality indicators for the diagnosis and surgical management of breast cancer in South Africa
INTRODUCTION: Quality indicators (QIs) for breast cancer care have been developed and applied in high-income countries and contributed to improved quality of care and patient outcomes over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used to derive expert consensus. Potential QIs were...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7593621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33120084 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.09.012 |
_version_ | 1783601426397659136 |
---|---|
author | Nietz, Sarah Ruff, Paul Chen, Wenlong Carl O’Neil, Daniel S. Norris, Shane A. |
author_facet | Nietz, Sarah Ruff, Paul Chen, Wenlong Carl O’Neil, Daniel S. Norris, Shane A. |
author_sort | Nietz, Sarah |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Quality indicators (QIs) for breast cancer care have been developed and applied in high-income countries and contributed to improved quality of care and patient outcomes over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used to derive expert consensus. Potential QIs were rated by a panel of 17 breast cancer experts from various subspecialties and across South African provinces. Each QI was rated according to importance to measure, scientific acceptability and feasibility. Scoring ranged from 1 (no agreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Inclusion thresholds were set a priori at mean ratings ≥4 with a coefficient variation of ≥25%. Levels of evidence were determined for each indicator. RESULTS: The literature review identified 790 potential QIs. After categorisation and removal of duplicates, 52 remained for panel review. There was strong consensus for 47 which were merged to 30 QIs by exclusion of similar indicators and indicator grouping. The final set included eight QIs with level I or II evidence and two QIs with level III evidence which were deemed “mandatory” due to clinical priority and impact on care. The remaining QIs with lower-level evidence were grouped as eight “recommended” QIs (regarded as standard of care) and twelve “optional” QIs (not regarded as standard of care). CONCLUSION: A regional set of QIs was developed to facilitate standardised treatment and auditing of surgical care for breast cancer patients in South Africa. Routine monitoring of the ten mandatory QIs, which were selected to have the most substantial impact on patient outcome, is proposed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7593621 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75936212020-11-02 Quality indicators for the diagnosis and surgical management of breast cancer in South Africa Nietz, Sarah Ruff, Paul Chen, Wenlong Carl O’Neil, Daniel S. Norris, Shane A. Breast Original Article INTRODUCTION: Quality indicators (QIs) for breast cancer care have been developed and applied in high-income countries and contributed to improved quality of care and patient outcomes over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used to derive expert consensus. Potential QIs were rated by a panel of 17 breast cancer experts from various subspecialties and across South African provinces. Each QI was rated according to importance to measure, scientific acceptability and feasibility. Scoring ranged from 1 (no agreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Inclusion thresholds were set a priori at mean ratings ≥4 with a coefficient variation of ≥25%. Levels of evidence were determined for each indicator. RESULTS: The literature review identified 790 potential QIs. After categorisation and removal of duplicates, 52 remained for panel review. There was strong consensus for 47 which were merged to 30 QIs by exclusion of similar indicators and indicator grouping. The final set included eight QIs with level I or II evidence and two QIs with level III evidence which were deemed “mandatory” due to clinical priority and impact on care. The remaining QIs with lower-level evidence were grouped as eight “recommended” QIs (regarded as standard of care) and twelve “optional” QIs (not regarded as standard of care). CONCLUSION: A regional set of QIs was developed to facilitate standardised treatment and auditing of surgical care for breast cancer patients in South Africa. Routine monitoring of the ten mandatory QIs, which were selected to have the most substantial impact on patient outcome, is proposed. Elsevier 2020-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7593621/ /pubmed/33120084 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.09.012 Text en © 2020 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Nietz, Sarah Ruff, Paul Chen, Wenlong Carl O’Neil, Daniel S. Norris, Shane A. Quality indicators for the diagnosis and surgical management of breast cancer in South Africa |
title | Quality indicators for the diagnosis and surgical management of breast cancer in South Africa |
title_full | Quality indicators for the diagnosis and surgical management of breast cancer in South Africa |
title_fullStr | Quality indicators for the diagnosis and surgical management of breast cancer in South Africa |
title_full_unstemmed | Quality indicators for the diagnosis and surgical management of breast cancer in South Africa |
title_short | Quality indicators for the diagnosis and surgical management of breast cancer in South Africa |
title_sort | quality indicators for the diagnosis and surgical management of breast cancer in south africa |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7593621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33120084 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.09.012 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nietzsarah qualityindicatorsforthediagnosisandsurgicalmanagementofbreastcancerinsouthafrica AT ruffpaul qualityindicatorsforthediagnosisandsurgicalmanagementofbreastcancerinsouthafrica AT chenwenlongcarl qualityindicatorsforthediagnosisandsurgicalmanagementofbreastcancerinsouthafrica AT oneildaniels qualityindicatorsforthediagnosisandsurgicalmanagementofbreastcancerinsouthafrica AT norrisshanea qualityindicatorsforthediagnosisandsurgicalmanagementofbreastcancerinsouthafrica |