Process indicators outshine outcome measures: assessing hospital quality of care in breast cancer treatment in China.
Bootstrap
Breast cancer
Healthcare in China
Process indicators
Quality assessment
Quality improvement
Rankability
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 08 2024
19 08 2024
Historique:
received:
21
05
2024
accepted:
16
08
2024
medline:
20
8
2024
pubmed:
20
8
2024
entrez:
19
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Reporting the results of quality indicators can narrow the gap in the quality of care between hospitals. While most studies rely on outcome indicators, they may not accurately measure the quality of care. Process indicators are not only strongly associated with treatment outcomes, but are also more sensitive to whether patients are treated accurately, enabling timely intervention. Our study aims to investigate whether process indicators provide a more reasonable assessment of hospital quality of care compared to outcome indicators. Data were sourced from the Specific Disease Medical Service Quality Management and Control System in China. A total of 113,942 patients with breast cancer treated in 298 hospitals between January 2019 and April 2023 were included in this retrospective study. The rankability of 11 process indicators was calculated and used as a weight to create a new composite indicator. The composite indicators and outcome measures were compared using the O/E ratio categories. Finally, in order to determine the impact of different years on the results, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using bootstrap sampling. The rankability (
Identifiants
pubmed: 39160221
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-70474-8
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-70474-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
19137Subventions
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 82173614
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Sung, H. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 71, 209–249 (2021).
doi: 10.3322/caac.21660
pubmed: 33538338
Vos, E. L. et al. Effect of case-mix and random variation on breast cancer care quality indicators and their rankability. Value Health 23, 1191–1199 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.12.014
pubmed: 32940237
Maes-Carballo, M. et al. Breast cancer care quality indicators in Spain: A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 6411 (2021).
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18126411
pubmed: 34199302
pmcid: 8296231
van Bommel, A. C. et al. Clinical auditing as an instrument for quality improvement in breast cancer care in the Netherlands: The national NABON Breast Cancer Audit. J. Surg. Oncol. 115, 243–249 (2017).
doi: 10.1002/jso.24516
pubmed: 27885679
Bao, H. et al. Developing a set of quality indicators for breast cancer care in China. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 27, 291–296 (2015).
doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzv042
pubmed: 26104388
Halasyamani, L. K. & Davis, M. M. Conflicting measures of hospital quality: Ratings from “Hospital Compare” versus “Best Hospitals”. J. Hosp. Med. 2, 128–134 (2007).
doi: 10.1002/jhm.176
pubmed: 17549759
Kara, P., Valentin, J. B., Mainz, J. & Johnsen, S. P. Composite measures of quality of health care: Evidence mapping of methodology and reporting. PLoS One 17, e0268320 (2022).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268320
pubmed: 35552561
pmcid: 9098058
de Boer, A. Z. et al. Early stage breast cancer treatment and outcome of older patients treated in an oncogeriatric care and a standard care setting: An international comparison. Breast Cancer Res .Treat. 184, 519–526 (2020).
doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-05860-7
pubmed: 32813120
pmcid: 7599178
Joko-Fru, W. Y. et al. Breast cancer diagnostics, therapy, and outcomes in sub-saharan Africa: A population-based registry study. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 20 (2021).
Dimick, J. B. & Upchurch, G. R. Jr. Measuring and improving the quality of care for abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Circulation 117, 2534–2541 (2008).
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.726836
pubmed: 18474825
Xia, C. et al. Cancer statistics in China and United States, 2022: Profiles, trends, and determinants. Chin Med. J. (Engl.) 135, 584–590 (2022).
doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002108
pubmed: 35143424
Lyratzopoulos, G. et al. How can health care organizations be reliably compared. Med. Care 49, 724–733 (2011).
doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31821b3482
pubmed: 21610543
Tinmouth, J. Unpacking quality indicators: How much do they reflect differences in the quality of care. BMJ Qual. Saf. 27, 4–6 (2018).
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006782
pubmed: 28951534
Ploeg, A. J., Flu, H. C., Lardenoye, J. H., Hamming, J. F. & Breslau, P. J. Assessing the quality of surgical care in vascular surgery: Moving from outcome towards structural and process measures. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 40, 696–707 (2010).
doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2010.05.010
pubmed: 20889355
van Dishoeck, A. M., Lingsma, H. F., Mackenbach, J. P. & Steyerberg, E. W. Random variation and rankability of hospitals using outcome indicators. BMJ Qual. Saf. 20, 869–874 (2011).
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.048058
pubmed: 21642443
Henneman, D. et al. Ranking and rankability of hospital postoperative mortality rates in colorectal cancer surgery. Ann. Surg. 259, 844–849 (2014).
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000561
pubmed: 24717374
National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. National report on the services, quality and safety in medical care system (2017).
van Houwelingen, J. & Brand, R. Empirical Bayes methods for monitoring health care quality (2000).
van Walle, L. et al. Assessment of potential process quality indicators for systemic treatment of breast cancer in Belgium: A population-based study. ESMO Open 6, 100207 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100207
pubmed: 34273808
pmcid: 8319479
Chazapis, M. et al. Perioperative structure and process quality and safety indicators: A systematic review. Br. J. Anaesth. 120, 51–66 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2017.10.001
pubmed: 29397138
Nyberg, A. et al. Perioperative patient safety indicators—a Delphi study. J. Clin. Nurs. (2024). Online ahead of print.
El Miedany, Y. et al. AB1145 quality indicators: Applying quality measures to improve services and patient outcomes. A quality improvement initiative. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 82, 1802 (2023).
Kolfschoten, N. E. et al. Combining process indicators to evaluate quality of care for surgical patients with colorectal cancer: Are scores consistent with short-term outcome. BMJ Qual. Saf. 21, 481–489 (2012).
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000439
pubmed: 22491528
Bakel, L. A. et al. Hospital’s observed specific standard practice: A novel measure of variation in care for common inpatient pediatric conditions. J. Hosp. Med. 17, 417–426 (2022).
doi: 10.1002/jhm.12811
pubmed: 35535935
Teng, R. et al. The influence of preoperative biopsy on the surgical method in breast cancer patients: A single-center experience of 3,966 cases in China. Gland Surg. 10, 1038–1045 (2021).
doi: 10.21037/gs-21-7
pubmed: 33842248
pmcid: 8033059
Baig, R. et al. Comparison of mammography, sonography, fine-needle aspiration cytology, and excision biopsy for the diagnosis of breast lesions[J]. Perspectives 10(2), 52 (2022).
Lingsma, H. F. et al. Comparing and ranking hospitals based on outcome: results from The Netherlands Stroke Survey. QJM 103, 99–108 (2010).
doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hcp169
pubmed: 20008321
Frencken, J. E. et al. Plaque, calculus, gingival bleeding and type of tooth cleaning device in a Tanzanian child population in 1984, 1986 and 1988. J. Clin. Periodontol. 18, 592–597 (1991).
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1991.tb00095.x
pubmed: 1795056