Identifying Opportunities to Deliver High-Quality Cancer Care Across a Health System: A Clinical Responsibility
- PMID: 38606669
- DOI: 10.1002/ohn.755
Identifying Opportunities to Deliver High-Quality Cancer Care Across a Health System: A Clinical Responsibility
Abstract
Objective: We examined process-related quality metrics for oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) depending on treating facility type across a health system and region.
Study design: Retrospective in accordance with Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines.
Setting: Single health system and region.
Methods: Patients with OSCC diagnosed between 2012 and 2018 were identified from tumor registries of 6 hospitals (1 academic and 5 community) within a single health system. Patients were categorized into 3 care groups: (1) solely at the academic center, (2) solely at community facilities, and (3) combined care at academic and community facilities. Primary outcome measures were process-related quality metrics: positive surgical margin rate, lymph node yield (LNY), adjuvant treatment initiation ≤6 weeks, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-guideline adherence.
Results: A total of 499 patients were included: 307 (61.5%) patients in the academic-only group, 101 (20.2%) in the community-only group, and 91 (18.2%) in the combined group. Surgery at community hospitals was associated with increased odds of positive surgical margins (11.9% vs 2.5%, odds ratio [OR]: 47.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.2-275.86, P < .001) and lower odds of LNY ≥ 18 (52.8% vs 85.9%, OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.07-0.33, P < .001) relative to the academic center. Compared with the academic-only group, odds of adjuvant treatment initiation ≤6 weeks were lower for the combined group (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.13-0.64, P = .002) and odds of NCCN guideline-adherent treatment were lower in the community only group (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.18-0.70, P = .003).
Conclusion: Quality of oral cancer care across the health system and region is comparable to or better-than national standards, indicating good baseline quality of care. Differences by facility type and fragmentation of care present an opportunity for bringing best in-class cancer care across an entire region.
Keywords: adjuvant treatment; guideline adherence; health systems; lymph node yield; oral cancer; process metrics; quality of care; surgical margins; treatment setting.
© 2024 American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.
References
-
- Chiu AS, Resio B, Hoag JR, et al. US public perceptions about cancer care provided by smaller hospitals associated with large hospitals recognized for specializing in cancer care. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(7):1008‐1009. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1400
-
- Cutler DM, Scott Morton F. Hospitals, market share, and consolidation. JAMA. 2013;310(18):1964‐1970. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281675
-
- Bhattacharyya N, Abemayor E. Combined changing patterns of hospital utilization for head and neck cancer care: implications for future care. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139(10):1043‐1047. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2013.4525
-
- DeSantis CE, Kramer JL, Jemal A. The burden of rare cancers in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(4):261‐272. doi:10.3322/caac.21400
-
- Puram SV, Bhattacharyya N. Quality indicators for head and neck oncologic surgery: academic versus nonacademic outcomes. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;155(5):733‐739. doi:10.1177/0194599816654689
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
