Advertisement

Quality indicators in gynecologic oncology

Published:September 13, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.09.002

      Highlights

      • Quality assessments must consist of patient-centric outcomes.
      • Multiple intrinsic challenges exist to reliably assess quality in the American healthcare system.
      • The guiding principle behind efforts to assess and improve quality is to improve the human condition.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gynecologic Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Barber E.L.
        • Doll K.M.
        • Gehrig P.A.
        Hospital readmission after ovarian cancer surgery: are we measuring surgical quality?.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2017; 146: 368-372
        • Bilimoria K.Y.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of surveillance bias and the validity of the venous thromboembolism quality measure.
        JAMA. 2013; 310: 1482-1489
        • Bristow R.E.
        • et al.
        The National Cancer Database report on advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: impact of hospital surgical case volume on overall survival and surgical treatment paradigm.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2010; 118: 262-267
        • Casalino L.P.
        • et al.
        US physician practices spend more than $15.4 billion annually to report quality measures.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2016; 35: 401-406
        • Chang V.
        • et al.
        Discordance between surgical care improvement project adherence and postoperative outcomes: implications for new joint commission standards.
        J. Surg. Res. 2017; 212: 205-213
        • Chescheir N.
        • Meints L.
        Prospective study of coding practices for cesarean deliveries.
        Obstet. Gynecol. 2009; 114: 217-223
        • Cima R.R.
        • et al.
        How best to measure surgical quality? Comparison of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators (AHRQ-PSI) and the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) postoperative adverse events at a single institution.
        Surgery. 2011; 150: 943-949
        • Cliby W.A.
        • et al.
        Ovarian cancer in the United States: contemporary patterns of care associated with improved survival.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2015; 136: 11-17
        • Cohn D.E.
        • et al.
        Reporting of quality measures in gynecologic oncology programs at prospective payment system (PPS)-exempt cancer hospitals: an early glimpse into a challenging initiative.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2013; 130: 403-406
        • Cohn D.E.
        • et al.
        The "value" of value in gynecologic oncology practice in the United States: Society of Gynecologic Oncology evidence-based review and recommendations.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2017; 145: 185-191
        • Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, I.o.M
        Kohn J.M.C. Linda T. Donaldson Molla S. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. National Academies Press, 2000
        • Dahm-Kahler P.
        • et al.
        Centralized primary care of advanced ovarian cancer improves complete cytoreduction and survival - a population-based cohort study.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2016; 142: 211-216
        • Etzioni D.A.
        • et al.
        Association of hospital participation in a surgical outcomes monitoring program with inpatient complications and mortality.
        JAMA. 2015; 313: 505-511
        • Etzioni D.A.
        • et al.
        Infectious surgical complications are not dichotomous: characterizing discordance between administrative data and registry data.
        Ann. Surg. 2018; 267: 81-87
        • Fader A.N.
        • et al.
        Disparities in treatment and survival for women with endometrial cancer: a contemporary national cancer database registry analysis.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2016; 143: 98-104
        • Fader A.N.
        • et al.
        Utilization of minimally invasive surgery in endometrial cancer care: a quality and cost disparity.
        Obstet. Gynecol. 2016; 127: 91-100
        • Hall B.L.
        • et al.
        Does surgical quality improve in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: an evaluation of all participating hospitals.
        Ann. Surg. 2009; 250: 363-376
        • Howell E.A.
        • et al.
        Association between hospital-level obstetric quality indicators and maternal and neonatal morbidity.
        JAMA. 2014; 312: 1531-1541
        • Joynt K.E.
        • et al.
        Association of public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention with utilization and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries with acute myocardial infarction.
        JAMA. 2012; 308: 1460-1468
        • Liang M.I.
        • et al.
        Setting the bar: compliance with ovarian cancer quality indicators at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2015; 138: 689-693
        • Mann S.
        • et al.
        Assessing quality obstetrical care: development of standardized measures.
        Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf. 2006; 32: 497-505
        • Mannschreck D.
        • et al.
        Disparities in surgical care among women with endometrial cancer.
        Obstet. Gynecol. 2016; 128: 526-534
        • Medicine, C.o.Q.o.H.C.i.A.a.I.o
        Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.
        National Academies Press, 2001
        • Morgenthaler T.I.
        • Rodriguez V.
        Preventing acute care-associated venous thromboembolism in adult and pediatric patients across a large healthcare system.
        J. Hosp. Med. 2016; 11: S15-s21
        • Morgenthaler T.I.
        • et al.
        Using a framework for spread of best practices to implement successful venous thromboembolism prophylaxis throughout a large hospital system.
        Am. J. Med. Qual. 2012; 27: 30-38
        • Ofri D.
        Quality measures and the individual physician.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 2010; 363: 606-607
        • Pendleton R.C.
        We Won't Get Value-Based Health Care Until We Agree on What “Value” Means.
        2018
        • Porter M.E.
        What is value in health care?.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 2010; 363: 2477-2481
        • Porter M.E.
        • Larsson S.
        • Lee T.H.
        Standardizing patient outcomes measurement.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 2016; 374: 504-506
        • Querleu D.
        • et al.
        Quality indicators in ovarian cancer surgery: report from the French Society of Gynecologic Oncology (Societe Francaise d'Oncologie Gynecologique, SFOG).
        Ann. Oncol. 2013; 24: 2732-2739
        • Querleu D.
        • et al.
        European Society Of Gynaecologic Oncology Quality Indicators for Advanced Ovarian Cancer Surgery.
        Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2016; 26: 1354-1363
        • Richman J.S.
        • et al.
        Improved outcomes associated with a revised quality measure for continuing perioperative beta-blockade.
        JAMA Surg. 2014; 149: 1031-1037
        • Schwarze M.L.
        • Brasel K.J.
        • Mosenthal A.C.
        Beyond 30-day mortality: aligning surgical quality with outcomes that patients value.
        JAMA Surg. 2014; 149: 631-632
        • Shalowitz D.I.
        • Vinograd A.M.
        • Giuntoli 2nd, R.L.
        Geographic access to gynecologic cancer care in the United States.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2015; 138: 115-120
        • Taylor J.S.
        • et al.
        What is the real rate of surgical site infection?.
        J. Oncol. Pract. 2016; 12: e878-e883
        • Tolcher M.C.
        • et al.
        Impact of a labor and delivery safety bundle on a modified adverse outcomes index.
        Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016; 214 (p. 401.e1-9)
        • Urbach D.R.
        Pledging to eliminate low-volume surgery.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 2015; 373: 1388-1390
        • Werbrouck J.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of the quality of the management of cancer of the corpus uteri–selection of relevant quality indicators and implementation in Belgium.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2013; 131: 512-519
        • Wilbur M.B.
        • et al.
        Unplanned 30-day hospital readmission as a quality measure in gynecologic oncology.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2016; 143: 604-610