Establishing a Core Set of Performance Measures to Improve Value in Cancer Care: ASCO Consensus Conference Recommendation Report

Neuss, Michael N.; Rocque, Gabrielle Betty; Zuckerman, Dan Sayam; Chiang, Anne C.; Katta, Sweatha; Wollins, Dana S.; Kamin, Deborah Y.; Edge, Stephen B.

doi:10.1200/jop.2016.017954

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ISPOR initiative and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review report highlight the need for the development of value frameworks incorporating the patient voice, 23 and it is essential that such measures incorporate multiple components (ie, resource use, clinical performance, patient experience, and outcomes). 24 To address this, in 2016 the National Health Council (NHC) proposed a patient-centered value model rubric with 6 key components: patient partnership, transparency to patients, inclusiveness of patients, diversity of patients/populations, outcomes patients care about, and patient-centered data sources. 25,26 This framework provides an important foundation from which we can begin to define and measure value in cancer care in a patientcentric manner.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspectives of Patients With Cancer on the Quality-Adjusted Life Year as a Measure of Value in Healthcare

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Healthcare expenditures in the United States continue to grow; to control costs, there has been a shift away from volumefocused care to value-based care. The incorporation of patient perspectives in the development of value-based healthcare is critical, yet research addressing this issue is limited. This study explores awareness and understanding of patients with cancer about the quality-adjusted life year (QALY), as well as their perspectives regarding the use of the QALY to measure value in healthcare. Methods: This cross-sectional study used survey methodology to explore patient awareness, understanding, and perspectives on the QALY. A total of 774 patients with cancer and survivors completed this survey in June and July of 2017. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted. Results: Results showed that there is limited awareness of the QALY among patients with cancer and survivors and minimal understanding of how the QALY is used. Only one quarter of respondents believed that the QALY was a good way to measure value in healthcare. Some participants (5%) stated that the QALY could be personally helpful to them in their own decision making, indicating the possible usefulness of the QALY as a decision aid in cancer care. Nevertheless, participants expressed concern about other decision makers using the QALY to allocate cancer care and resources and maintained a strong desire for autonomy over personal healthcare choices. Conclusions: Although participants believed that the QALY could help them make more informed decisions, there was concern about how it would be used by payers, policymakers, and other decision makers in determining access to care. Implications for policy and research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspectives of Patients With Cancer on the Quality-Adjusted Life Year as a Measure of Value in Healthcare

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, routinely available national clinical cancer data linked to SACT data and hospital administrative data provided over 95% case ascertainment across all English NHS hospitals with good recording of comorbidities, performance status, staging, and detailed SACT information. This also allowed the capture of all hospital admissions, regardless of whether the hospital provided chemotherapy, and we assigned the toxicity to the hospital delivering the chemotherapy [47].…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring variation in the quality of systemic anti-cancer therapy delivery across hospitals: A national population-based evaluation.

Boyle

Meulen

Kuryba

et al. 2023

JCO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

6593 Background: To date, there has been little systematic assessment of the quality of care associated with systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) delivery across national healthcare systems. We evaluated hospital-level toxicity rates during SACT treatment as a means of identifying variation in care quality. Methods: All colorectal cancer patients receiving SACT within 106 English National Health Service hospitals between 2016 and 2019 were included. Severe acute toxicity rates were derived from hospital administrative data using a validated coding framework. Variation in hospital-level toxicity rates was assessed separately in the adjuvant and metastatic settings. Toxicity rates were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, performance status, tumour site, and TNM staging. Results: Of the 8,173 patients receiving SACT in the adjuvant setting, 2,074 (25%) had a toxicity with adjusted hospital-level rates varying from 11% to 49%. Of the 7,683 patients receiving SACT in the metastatic setting, 3,625 (47%) had a toxicity with adjusted hospital-level rates varying from 25% to 67%. Compared to the national mean toxicity rate in the adjuvant cohort, six hospitals were more than 2 standard deviations (2SD) above, and four hospitals were more than 2SD below. Similarly, in the metastatic cohort, six hospitals were more than 2SD above, and seven hospitals were more than 2SD below the national mean toxicity rate. Conclusions: There is substantial variation in hospital-level severe acute toxicity rates in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings, despite comprehensive risk-adjustment. Ongoing reporting of this performance indicator can be used to focus further investigation of toxicity rates and stimulate quality improvement initiatives to enhance care.

show abstract

“…This is defined as the sum of the number of days recorded between the date of cancer diagnosis and the date of cancer treatment initiation for all patients treated during the above-mentioned periods, divided by the number of patients treated. 13,14 Methods. We conducted a multi-centric, record based, retrospective, comparative study of 2 groups of adult cancer patients treated in all military hospitals in Saudi Arabia, providing oncology services from February to July 2019 and 2020.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer management in military hospitals of Saudi Arabia

Zahrani

Ghorbel

Mukhtar

et al. 2021

SMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on cancer management in Saudi Arabia’s military hospitals. Methods: This multi-centric, retrospective study compared cancer patients diagnosed from February-July 2019 and 2020, focusing on the time duration for acceptance and time for oncologic treatment initiation. Eligibility and referral status were recorded. Clinical data of COVID-19-positive cancer patients were collected and evaluated their outcomes and survival. Results: Data of 1574 cancer patients (mean age, 57.1 years) were collected. Mean time for acceptance was 7.3 days in 2019 and 8 days in 2020, with no statistically significant difference. Mean time for oncology treatment initiation was 38.4 days in 2019 and 44.3 days in 2020, with no statistically significant difference. The number of new cancer patients decreased in 2020 but increased in peripheral hospitals. It decreased in Riyadh and Jeddah hospitals. Concerning referral status, a statistically significant modification was recorded only in Riyadh and Tabuk hospitals. No significant changes observed in time duration for acceptance of new patients and oncology treatment initiation from 2019-2020. A total of 76 COVID-19-positive cancer patients recorded; 72% were symptomatic, 73.6% recovered, 22.3% died due to COVID-19 complications, and 8% died due to cancer; cancer progressed in 7 patients. Conclusion: COVID-19 did not affect oncology service in Saudi Arabia’s military hospitals. New cancer cases reduced during the pandemic. Cancer patients are at increased risk for COVID-19 complications, including death.

show abstract

Establishing a Core Set of Performance Measures to Improve Value in Cancer Care: ASCO Consensus Conference Recommendation Report

Cited by 9 publications

References 5 publications

Perspectives of Patients With Cancer on the Quality-Adjusted Life Year as a Measure of Value in Healthcare

Perspectives of Patients With Cancer on the Quality-Adjusted Life Year as a Measure of Value in Healthcare

Measuring variation in the quality of systemic anti-cancer therapy delivery across hospitals: A national population-based evaluation.

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer management in military hospitals of Saudi Arabia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About