Getting quality data back to frontline providers
Barry-Weers A, Huibregtse C, Ihde S, Bjegovich-Weidman M, Weese J. Getting quality data back to frontline providers. J Clin Oncol 32, 2014 (suppl 30; abstr 196).
2014 ASCO Quality Care Symposium; General Poster Session A: Science of Quality and Cost, Value, and Policy in Quality
Background: Oncology quality performance metrics may be improved by establishing a coordinated process for getting data back to providers. However, establishing ownership of quality metric data can be a challenge, especially in a large, integrated health system.
Methods: Aurora Cancer Care’s team developed quality charters and a coordinated process for its 15-hospital, integrated health system that outlines a course of action for metric selection, data distribution, peer review and development of process improvement plans. A weighted tool was developed and implemented to prioritize measure selection. The weighted tool described and scored each quality measure against its performance improvement opportunity, ease in data collection, national benchmarks, regulatory and reimbursement impact, value to the patient and consideration of the resources required to implement change. The final score was used to prioritize and select measures. The System Multidisciplinary Disease-Specific Quality Subcommittees established quality measures. Abstraction began, outliers were reviewed and results were disseminated to the System Cancer Leadership Council as well as the 15 hospitals via the Regional Cancer Quality Subcommittees (RCQS). The RCQS chairs and quality directors meet quarterly with the system quality liaison to ensure the communication of data back to the front-line providers.
Results: We found a rise in the percentages of invasive rectal cancers diagnosed with endorectal ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (no stage IV) (2012: 76%, 2013: 84%) and treated with total mesorectal excision (no stage IV) (2012: 72%, 2013: 87%). In addition, increases in the examination of at least 12 regional lymph nodes for invasive colorectal cancer (2012: 93%, 2013: 98%; p<0.05) and partial, rather than total, nephrectomy for renal cancer patients with T1a tumors (2012: 71%, 2013: 95%; p<0.05) were statistically significant.
Conclusions: Though our coordinated process to get quality data back to providers continues to evolve, our front-line providers have shown greater enthusiasm for the data, engaged in behavior modification and become more accountable with process improvement plans that are integral to establishing the best patient outcomes.