Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Jun 16;101(12):848-59.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp107. Epub 2009 Jun 9.

Assessment of pancreatic cancer care in the United States based on formally developed quality indicators

Karl Y Bilimoria  1 , David J Bentrem, Keith D Lillemoe, Mark S Talamonti, Clifford Y Ko; Pancreatic Cancer Quality Indicator Development Expert Panel, American College of Surgeons
Collaborators, Affiliations

Assessment of pancreatic cancer care in the United States based on formally developed quality indicators

Karl Y Bilimoria et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. .

Abstract

Background: Pancreatic cancer outcomes vary considerably among hospitals. Assessing pancreatic cancer care by using quality indicators could help reduce this variability. However, valid quality indicators are not currently available for pancreatic cancer management, and a composite assessment of the quality of pancreatic cancer care in the United States has not been done.

Methods: Potential quality indicators were identified from the literature, consensus guidelines, and interviews with experts. A panel of 20 pancreatic cancer experts ranked potential quality indicators for validity based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. The rankings were rated as valid (high or moderate validity) or not valid. Adherence with valid indicators at both the patient and the hospital levels and a composite measure of adherence at the hospital level were assessed using data from the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2005) for 49 065 patients treated at 1134 hospitals. Summary statistics were calculated for each individual candidate quality indicator to assess the median ranking and distribution.

Results: Of the 50 potential quality indicators identified, 43 were rated as valid (29 as high and 14 as moderate validity). Of the 43 valid indicators, 11 (25.6%) assessed structural factors, 19 (44.2%) assessed clinical processes of care, four (9.3%) assessed treatment appropriateness, four (9.3%) assessed efficiency, and five (11.6%) assessed outcomes. Patient-level adherence with individual indicators ranged from 49.6% to 97.2%, whereas hospital-level adherence with individual indicators ranged from 6.8% to 99.9%. Of the 10 component indicators (contributing 1 point each) that were used to develop the composite score, most hospitals were adherent with fewer than half of the indicators (median score = 4; interquartile range = 3-5).

Conclusions: Based on the quality indicators developed in this study, there is considerable variability in the quality of pancreatic cancer care in the United States. Hospitals can use these indicators to evaluate the pancreatic cancer care they provide and to identify potential quality improvement opportunities.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overview of the modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology used to develop pancreatic cancer care quality indicators.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Examples of hospital performance with respect to hospital-level quality measures. A) Pancreatectomy volume. B) Perioperative mortality rate. Each circle represents one of the 1134 Commission on Cancer–approved hospitals included in this study. The horizontal line represents the threshold for adherence set by the expert panel.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Composite measure of hospital-level performance. The composite score comprises the 10 valid component measures.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Bentrem DJ, Brennan MF. Outcomes in oncologic surgery: does volume make a difference? World J Surg. 2005;29(10):1210–1216. - PubMed
    1. Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR. Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(6):511–520. - PubMed
    1. Lieberman MD, Kilburn H, Lindsey M, Brennan MF. Relation of perioperative deaths to hospital volume among patients undergoing pancreatic resection for malignancy. Ann Surg. 1995;222(5):638–645. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ, Brennan MF. Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA. 1998;280(20):1747–1751. - PubMed
    1. Gordon TA, Bowman HM, Tielsch JM, Bass EB, Burleyson GP, Cameron JL. Statewide regionalization of pancreaticoduodenectomy and its effect on in-hospital mortality. Ann Surg. 1998;228(1):71–78. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types