Assessing the quality of colorectal cancer care: do we have appropriate quality measures? (A systematic review of literature).
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The burden of illness from colorectal cancer (CRC) can be reduced by improving the quality of care. Identifying appropriate quality measures is the first step in this direction. We identified process measures currently available to assess the quality of diagnosis and management of CRC. We also evaluated the extent to which these measures are ready to be implemented in clinical practice, and identified areas for future research.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and relevant grey literature. We identified 3771 abstracts and reviewed 74 articles that included quality measures for diagnosis or management of CRC. Measures from traditional quality improvement literature, and from epidemiological and other studies that included quality measures as part of their research agenda, were considered. In addition, we devised a summary rating scale (IST) to appraise the extent of a measure's importance and usability, scientific acceptability and extent of testing.
RESULTS: The coverage of general process measures in CRC is extensive. Most measures are important, but need to be developed and field-tested. The best available measures relate to pathology and chemotherapy. No measures are available for assessing quality of management of stage IV rectal cancer and hepatic metastasis; chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer; and procedure notes.
CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need to refine existing measures and to develop scientifically accurate quality measures for a comprehensive assessment of the quality of CRC care. The role of the federal government and professional societies is critical in pursuing this goal.
Published In/Presented At
Patwardhan, M., Fisher, D. A., Mantyh, C. R., McCrory, D. C., Morse, M. A., Prosnitz, R. G., Cline, K., & Samsa, G. P. (2007). Assessing the quality of colorectal cancer care: do we have appropriate quality measures? (A systematic review of literature). Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 13(6), 831–845. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00762.x
Medicine and Health Sciences | Oncology
Department of Radiation Oncology