4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Results of the national initiative for cancer care quality: How can we improve the quality of cancer care in the United States?

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 626-634

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.3365

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose In 1999, the National Cancer Policy Board called attention to the quality of cancer care in the United States and recommended establishing a quality monitoring system with the capability of regularly reporting on the quality of care for patients with cancer. Methods Using data from a patient survey 4 years after diagnosis and review of medical records, we determined the percentage of stage I to III breast cancer and stage II to III colorectal cancer survivors in five metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) across the United States who received recommended care specified by a comprehensive set of explicit quality measures. Results Two thousand three hundred sixty-six (63%) of 3,775 eligible patients responded to the survey, and 85% consented to have their medical records reviewed. Our final analytic sample (n = 1,765) included 47% of the eligible patients. Patients with breast and colorectal cancer received 86% of recommended care (95% Cl, 86% to 87%) and 78% of recommended care (95% Cl, 77% to 79%), respectively. Adherence to quality measures was less than 85% for 18 of the 36 breast cancer measures, and significant variation across MSAs was observed for seven quality measures. The percent adherence was less than 85% for 14 of the 25 colorectal cancer measures, and one quality measure demonstrated statistically significant variation across the MSAs. Conclusion Initial management of patients with breast and colorectal cancer in the United States seemed consistent with evidence-based practice; however, substantial variation in adherence to some quality measures point to significant opportunities for improvement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available