Selecting High Priority Quality Measures For Breast Cancer Quality Improvement
- 1 August 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Medical Care
- Vol. 46 (8), 762-770
- https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0b013e318178ead3
Abstract
Background: Although many quality measures have been created, there is no consensus regarding which are the most important. We sought to develop a simple, explicit strategy for prioritizing breast cancer quality measures based on their potential to highlight areas where quality improvement efforts could most impact a population. Methods: Using performance data for 9019 breast cancer patients treated at 10 National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions, we assessed concordance relative to 30 reliable, valid breast cancer process-based treatment measures. We identified 4 attributes that indicated there was room for improvement and characterized the extent of burden imposed by failing to follow each measure: number of nonconcordant patients, concordance across all institutions, highest concordance at any 1 institution, and magnitude of benefit associated with concordant care. For each measure, we used data from the concordance analyses to derive the first 3 attributes and surveyed expert breast cancer physicians to estimate the fourth. A simple algorithm incorporated these attributes and produced a final score for each measure; these scores were used to rank the measures. Results: We successfully prioritized quality measures using explicit, objective methods and actual performance data. The number of nonconcordant patients had the greatest influence on the rankings. The highest-ranking measures recommended chemotherapy and hormone therapy for hormone-receptor positive tumors and radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery. Conclusions: This simple, explicit approach is a significant departure from methods used previously, and effectively identifies breast cancer quality measures that have broad clinical relevance. Systematically prioritizing quality measures could increase the efficiency and efficacy of quality improvement efforts and substantially improve outcomes.Keywords
This publication has 40 references indexed in Scilit:
- What's the Return? Assessing the Effect of "Pay-for-Performance" Initiatives on the Quality of Care DeliveryMedical Care Research and Review, 2006
- Using Public Reports of Patient Satisfaction for Hospital Quality ImprovementHealth Services Research, 2006
- Insurance Status and the Use of Guideline Therapy in the Treatment of Selected CancersJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2005
- Early Experience With Pay-for-PerformanceJAMA, 2005
- Persistence of Medical Change at Implementation of Clinical Guidelines on Medical Practice: A Controlled Study in a Cancer NetworkJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2005
- Development of a set of strategy-based system-level cancer care performance indicators in Ontario, CanadaInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2005
- Evidence-Based Quality Improvement: The State Of The ScienceHealth Affairs, 2005
- Paying For Quality: Providers’ Incentives For Quality ImprovementHealth Affairs, 2004
- Quality of Breast Cancer Care: What Do We Know?Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2002
- A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validationJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1987