Publicatiedatum
Hyperlink
Naam tijdschrift
International journal for quality in health care
Objective: To evaluate the quality of care for all patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Belgium based on a set of evidence-based quality indicators and to study the variability of care between hospitals.
Design, setting, participants: A retrospective study based on linked data from the cancer registry, insurance claims and vital status for all patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2010 and 2011. Evidence-based quality indicators were identified from a systematic literature search. A specific algorithm to attribute patients to a centre was developed, and funnel plots were used to assess variability of care between centres.
Intervention: None.
Main outcome measure: The proportion of patients who received appropriate care as defined by the indicator. Secondary outcome included the variability of care between centres.
Results: Twenty indicators were measured for a total of 12 839 patients. Good results were achieved for 60-day post-surgical mortality (3.9%), histopathological confirmation of diagnosis (93%) and for the use of PET-CT before treatment with curative intent (94%). Areas to be improved include the reporting of staging information to the Belgian Cancer Registry (80%), the use of brain imaging for clinical stage III patients eligible for curative treatment (79%), and the time between diagnosis and start of first active treatment (median 20 days). High variability between centres was observed for several indicators. Twenty-three indicators were found relevant but could not be measured.
Conclusion: This study highlights the feasibility to develop a multidisciplinary set of quality indicators using population-based data. The main advantage of this approach is that not additional registration is required, but the non-measurability of many relevant indicators is a hamper. It allows however to easily point to areas of large variability in care.
Design, setting, participants: A retrospective study based on linked data from the cancer registry, insurance claims and vital status for all patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2010 and 2011. Evidence-based quality indicators were identified from a systematic literature search. A specific algorithm to attribute patients to a centre was developed, and funnel plots were used to assess variability of care between centres.
Intervention: None.
Main outcome measure: The proportion of patients who received appropriate care as defined by the indicator. Secondary outcome included the variability of care between centres.
Results: Twenty indicators were measured for a total of 12 839 patients. Good results were achieved for 60-day post-surgical mortality (3.9%), histopathological confirmation of diagnosis (93%) and for the use of PET-CT before treatment with curative intent (94%). Areas to be improved include the reporting of staging information to the Belgian Cancer Registry (80%), the use of brain imaging for clinical stage III patients eligible for curative treatment (79%), and the time between diagnosis and start of first active treatment (median 20 days). High variability between centres was observed for several indicators. Twenty-three indicators were found relevant but could not be measured.
Conclusion: This study highlights the feasibility to develop a multidisciplinary set of quality indicators using population-based data. The main advantage of this approach is that not additional registration is required, but the non-measurability of many relevant indicators is a hamper. It allows however to easily point to areas of large variability in care.