Premium
Evaluating the quality of cancer care
Author(s) -
Malin Jennifer L.,
Asch Steven M.,
Kerr Eve A.,
McGlynn Elizabeth A.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.052
H-Index - 304
eISSN - 1097-0142
pISSN - 0008-543X
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(20000201)88:3<701::aid-cncr29>3.0.co;2-v
Subject(s) - medicine , delphi method , cancer , quality (philosophy) , intensive care medicine , statistics , philosophy , mathematics , epistemology
BACKGROUND The rise of managed care has increased interest in measuring, reporting, and improving quality of care. To date, quality assessment has relied on a leading indicator approach, which may miss important variations in care. The authors developed cancer specific indicators using a novel case‐based approach for a quality measurement tool designed to compare different managed care organizations. METHODS Based on a review of the literature, quality indicators were developed for 6 types of cancer and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as well as 39 general adult conditions (GAC). The validity and feasibility of these candidate indicators were evaluated using three modified Delphi expert panels. The strength of evidence, type of care (preventive, acute, or chronic), function (screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow‐up), and modality (history, physical examination, laboratory, medication, or other intervention) of the cancer/HIV quality indicators were compared with indicators developed for GAC. RESULTS The final system included 117 of the 145 proposed cancer/HIV quality indicators (81%) and 569 of the 705 proposed GAC indicators (81%). A greater percentage of the cancer/HIV indicators were based on evidence from clinical trials compared with the GAC indicators (59% vs. 31%; P = 0.001). Cancer/HIV had significantly more indicators pertaining to chronic care than did GAC (74% vs. 56%; P = 0.001) as well as more indicators for treatment (53% vs. 39%; P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS Using the case‐based approach, it is feasible to develop quality indicators for cancer that cover the continuum of care. Future studies will evaluate the reliability and validity of measurements made using these indicators in three managed care plans. Cancer 2000;88:701–7. © 2000 American Cancer Society.