4.2 Article

Measuring the quality of cancer care in the Barwon South Western region, Victoria, Australia

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa145

关键词

cancer; clinical quality indicators; health service; patient care; treatment pathways

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study implemented clinical quality indicators to monitor cancer care in regional, rural, and remote areas in Australia. The findings suggest that clinical quality indicators provide valuable insights into care patterns and can be easily replicated for use in other cancer centers and health services.
Objective: The implementation of clinical quality indicators for monitoring cancer care in regional, rural and remote areas. Design: Retrospective data from a population-based Clinical Quality Registry for lung, colorectal and breast cancers. Setting: All major health services in the Barwon South Western region, Victoria, Australia. Participants: All patients who were diagnosed with cancer and who presented to a health service. Intervention(s): Clinical subgroups to review variations. Main Outcome Measures(s): Clinical quality indicators for lung, colorectal and breast cancers. Results: Clinical indicators included the following: discussion at multidisciplinary meetings, the timeliness of care provided and the type of care for different stages of the disease and survival outcomes. Many of the derived clinical indicator targets were reached. However, variations led to an improvement in the tumour stage being recorded in the medical record; an improved awareness of the need for adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer; a reduction in time to treatment for lung cancer and a reduced time to surgery for breast cancer, and the 30-day mortality post-treatment for all of the tumour streams was highlighted. Conclusions: Clinical quality indicators allow for valuable insights into patterns of care. These indicators are easily reproduced and may be of use to other cancer centres and health services.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据