Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: An assessment based on clinical practice guidelines

Coory, Michael, Thompson, Bridie, Baade, Peter and Fritschi, Lin (2009) Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: An assessment based on clinical practice guidelines. BMC Health Services Research, 9 84.1-84.6. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-84


Author Coory, Michael
Thompson, Bridie
Baade, Peter
Fritschi, Lin
Title Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: An assessment based on clinical practice guidelines
Journal name BMC Health Services Research   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1472-6963
Publication date 2009-05-27
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-9-84
Open Access Status DOI
Volume 9
Start page 84.1
End page 84.6
Total pages 6
Editor Melissa Norton
Place of publication London, United Kingdom
Publisher BioMed Central
Language eng
Subject C1
920499 Public Health (excl. Specific Population Health) not elsewhere classified
111799 Public Health and Health Services not elsewhere classified
Abstract Background. Not all cancer patients receive state-of-the-art care and providing regular feedback to clinicians might reduce this problem. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of various data sources in providing feedback on the quality of cancer care. Methods. Published clinical practice guidelines were used to obtain a list of processes-of-care of interest to clinicians. These were assigned to one of four data categories according to their availability and the marginal cost of using them for feedback. Results. Only 8 (3%) of 243 processes-of-care could be measured using population-based registry or administrative inpatient data (lowest cost). A further 119 (49%) could be measured using a core clinical registry, which contains information on important prognostic factors (e.g., clinical stage, physiological reserve, hormone-receptor status). Another 88 (36%) required an expanded clinical registry or medical record review; mainly because they concerned long-term management of disease progression (recurrences and metastases) and 28 (11.5%) required patient interview or audio-taping of consultations because they involved information sharing between clinician and patient. Conclusion. The advantages of population-based cancer registries and administrative inpatient data are wide coverage and low cost. The disadvantage is that they currently contain information on only a few processes-of-care. In most jurisdictions, clinical cancer registries, which can be used to report on many more processes-of-care, do not cover smaller hospitals. If we are to provide feedback about all patients, not just those in larger academic hospitals with the most developed data systems, then we need to develop sustainable population-based data systems that capture information on prognostic factors at the time of initial diagnosis and information on management of disease progression.
Formatted abstract
Background
Not all cancer patients receive state-of-the-art care and providing regular feedback to clinicians might reduce this problem. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of various data sources in providing feedback on the quality of cancer care.

Methods

Published clinical practice guidelines were used to obtain a list of processes-of-care of interest to clinicians. These were assigned to one of four data categories according to their availability and the marginal cost of using them for feedback.

Results
Only 8 (3%) of 243 processes-of-care could be measured using population-based registry or administrative inpatient data (lowest cost). A further 119 (49%) could be measured using a core clinical registry, which contains information on important prognostic factors (e.g., clinical stage, physiological reserve, hormone-receptor status). Another 88 (36%) required an expanded clinical registry or medical record review; mainly because they concerned long-term management of disease progression (recurrences and metastases) and 28 (11.5%) required patient interview or audio-taping of consultations because they involved information sharing between clinician and patient.

Conclusion

The advantages of population-based cancer registries and administrative inpatient data are wide coverage and low cost. The disadvantage is that they currently contain information on only a few processes-of-care. In most jurisdictions, clinical cancer registries, which can be used to report on many more processes-of-care, do not cover smaller hospitals. If we are to provide feedback about all patients, not just those in larger academic hospitals with the most developed data systems, then we need to develop sustainable population-based data systems that capture information on prognostic factors at the time of initial diagnosis and information on management of disease progression.
Keyword Registry data
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ
Additional Notes Article number 84

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: 2010 Higher Education Research Data Collection
ERA 2012 Admin Only
School of Public Health Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 7 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 8 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Thu, 03 Sep 2009, 17:54:33 EST by Mr Andrew Martlew on behalf of School of Public Health