Evaluation of the quality of the management of cancer of the corpus uteri-Selection of relevant quality indicators and implementation in Belgium

Objective Describe the methodology and selection of quality indicators (QI) to be implemented in the EFFECT (EFFectiveness of Endometrial Cancer Treatment) project. EFFECT aims to monitor the variability in Quality of Care (QoC) of uterine cancer in Belgium, to compare the effectiveness of different treatment strategies to improve the QoC and to check the internal validity of the QI to validate the impact of process indicators on outcome. Methods A QI list was retrieved from literature, recent guidelines and QI databases. The Belgian Healthcare Knowledge Center methodology was used for the selection process and involved an expert's panel rating the QI on 4 criteria. The resulting scores and further discussion resulted in a final QI list. An online EFFECT module was developed by the Belgian Cancer Registry including the list of variables required for measuring the QI. Three test phases were performed to evaluate the relevance, feasibility and understanding of the variables and to test the compatibility of the dataset. Results 138 QI were considered for further discussion and 82 QI were eligible for rating. Based on the rating scores and consensus among the expert's panel, 41 QI were considered measurable and relevant. Testing of the data collection enabled optimization of the content and the user-friendliness of the dataset and online module. Conclusions This first Belgian initiative for monitoring the QoC of uterine cancer indicates that the previously used QI selection methodology is reproducible for uterine cancer. The QI list could be applied by other research groups for comparison. © 2013 Elsevier Inc.

Quality of care for cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: Development of key interventions and outcome indicators using a two-round Delphi approach

Purpose: Clear recommendations on how to guide patients with cancer on home parenteral nutrition (HPN) are lacking as the use of HPN in this population remains a controversial issue. Therefore, the aims of this study were to rank treatment recommendations and main outcome indicators to ensure high-quality care and to indicate differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients. Methods: Treatment recommendations, identified from published guidelines, were used as a starting point for a two-round Delphi approach. Comments and additional interventions proposed in the first round were reevaluated in the second round. Ordinal logistic regression with SPSS 2.0 was used to identify differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients. Results: Twenty-seven experts from five European countries completed two Delphi rounds. After the second Delphi round, the top three most important outcome indicators were (1) quality of life (QoL), (2) incidence of hospital readmission and (3) incidence of catheter-related infections. Forty-two interventions were considered as important for quality of care (28/42 based on published guidelines; 14/42 newly suggested by Delphi panel). The topics 'Liver disease' and 'Metabolic bone disease' were considered less important for cancer patients, together with use of infusion pumps (p = 0.004) and monitoring of vitamins and trace elements (p = 0.000). Monitoring of QoL is considered more important for cancer patients (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Using a two-round Delphi approach, we developed a minimal set of 42 interventions that may be used to determine quality of care in HPN patients with malignancies. This set of interventions differs from a similar set developed for benign patients. © 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.