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
. 2016 Apr;23(2):81-90.
doi: 10.3747/co.23.2789. Epub 2016 Apr 13.

Identification of performance indicators across a network of clinical cancer programs

Affiliations

Identification of performance indicators across a network of clinical cancer programs

S R Khare et al. Curr Oncol. 2016 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Cancer quality indicators have previously been described for a single tumour site or a single treatment modality, or according to distinct data sources. Our objective was to identify cancer quality indicators across all treatment modalities specific to breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer.

Methods: Candidate indicators for each tumour site were extracted from the relevant literature and rated in a modified Delphi approach by multidisciplinary groups of expert clinicians from 3 clinical cancer programs. All rating rounds were conducted by e-mail, except for one that was conducted as a face-to-face expert panel meeting, thus modifying the original Delphi technique. Four high-level indicators were chosen for immediate data collection. A list of confounding variables was also constructed in a separate literature review.

Results: A total of 156 candidate indicators were identified for breast cancer, 68 for colorectal cancer, 40 for lung cancer, and 43 for prostate cancer. Iterative rounds of ratings led to a final list of 20 evidence- and consensus-based indicators each for colorectal and lung cancer, and 19 each for breast and prostate cancer. Approximately 30 clinicians participated in the selection of the breast, lung, and prostate indicators; approximately 50 clinicians participated in the selection of the colorectal indicators.

Conclusions: The modified Delphi approach that incorporates an in-person meeting of expert clinicians is an effective and efficient method for performance indicator selection and offers the added benefit of optimal clinician engagement. The finalized indicator lists for each tumour site, together with salient confounding variables, can be directly adopted (or adapted) for deployment within a performance improvement program.

Keywords: Performance measures; health care quality assessment; quality improvement; quality indicators; quality of cancer care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Modified Delphi approach for indicator selection.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Phased reduction of indicators.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. United States, The National Academies, Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America . Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
    1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development . Improving Value in Health Care: Measuring Quality. Paris, France: Forum on Quality of Care; 2010.
    1. McCarthy M, Gonzalez-Izquierdo A, Sherlaw-Johnson C, Khachatryan A, Coleman MP, Rachet B. Comparative indicators for cancer network management in England: availability, characteristics and presentation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:45. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-45. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schneider EC, Malin JL, Kahn KL, Emanuel EJ, Epstein AM. Developing a system to assess the quality of cancer care: asco’s national initiative on cancer care quality. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2985–91. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.09.087. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (cpac) The 2012 Cancer System Performance Report. Toronto, ON: CPAC; 2012.

LinkOut - more resources