Open AccessUse of Electronic Administrative Databases to Measure Quality Indicators of Breast Cancer Care: Experience of Five Regional Oncology Networks in Italy
Author(s) -
Valentina Guarneri,
Paolo Pronzato,
Oscar Bertetto,
Fausto Roila,
Gianni Amunni,
Alberto Bortolami,
S Tognazzo,
Gaia Griguolo,
Eva Pagano,
Fabrizio Stracci,
Fortunato Bianconi,
Fabrizio Gemmi,
Letizia Bachini,
Giovannino Ciccone,
Gabriella Paoli,
Laura Paleari,
Pierfranco Conte
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
jco oncology practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2688-1535
pISSN - 2688-1527
DOI - 10.1200/jop.19.00466
Subject(s) - medicine , health care , breast cancer , quality (philosophy) , cohort , benchmark (surveying) , performance indicator , population , cancer registry , cancer , database , family medicine , geography , computer science , business , environmental health , philosophy , geodesy , epistemology , marketing , economics , economic growth
PURPOSE: Assuring quality of care, while maintaining sustainability, in complex conditions such as breast cancer (BC) is an important challenge for health systems. Here, we describe a methodology to define a set of quality indicators, assess their computability from administrative data, and apply them to a large cohort of BC cases.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical professionals from the Italian Regional Oncology Networks identified 46 clinically relevant indicators of BC care; 22 were potentially computable using administrative data. Incident cases of BC diagnosed in 2016 in five Italian regions were identified using administrative databases from regional repositories. Each indicator was calculated through record linkage of anonymized individual data.RESULTS: A total of 15,342 incident BC cases were identified. Nine indicators were actually computable from administrative data (two structure and seven process indicators). Although most indicators were consistent with guidelines, for one indicator (blood tumor markers in the year after surgery, 44.2% to 64.5%; benchmark ≤ 20%), deviation was evident throughout the five regions, highlighting systematic overlooking of clinical recommendations. Two indicators (radiotherapy within 4 months after surgery if no adjuvant chemotherapy; 42% to 83.8%; benchmark ≥ 90%; and mammography 6 to 18 months after surgery, 55.1% to 72.6%; benchmark ≥ 90%) showed great regional variability and were lower than expected, possibly as result of an underestimation in indicator calculation by administrative data.CONCLUSION: Despite highlighting some limitations in the use of administrative data to measure health care performance, this study shows that evaluating the quality of BC care at a population level is possible and potentially useful for guiding quality improvement interventions.