Utilization of Prostate Cancer Quality Metrics for Research and Quality Improvement: A Structured Review

Davide Gori, Rajendra Dulal, Douglas W. Blayney, James D. Brooks, Maria P. Fantini, Kathryn M. McDonald, Tina Hernandez-Boussard

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Background: The shift toward value-based care in the United States emphasizes the role of quality measures in payment models. Many diseases, such as prostate cancer, have a proliferation of quality measures, resulting in resource burden and physician burnout. This study aimed to identify and summarize proposed prostate cancer quality measures and describe their frequency and use in peer-reviewed literature. Methods: The PubMed database was used to identify quality measures relevant to prostate cancer care, and included articles in English through April 2018. A gray literature search for other documents was also conducted. After the selection process of the pertinent articles, measure characteristics were abstracted, and uses were summarized for the 10 most frequently utilized measures in the literature. Results: A total of 26 articles were identified for review. Of the 71 proposed prostate cancer quality measures, only 47 were used, and less than 10% of these were endorsed by the National Quality Forum. Process measures were most frequently reported (84.5%). Only 6 outcome measures (8.5%) were proposed—none of which were among the most frequently utilized. Conclusion: Although a high number of proposed prostate cancer quality measures are reported in the literature, few were assessed, and the majority of these were non-endorsed process measures. Process measures were most commonly assessed; outcome measures were rarely evaluated. In a step to close the quality chasm, a “top 5” core set of quality measures for prostate cancer care, including structure, process, and outcomes measures, is suggested. Future studies should consider this comprehensive set of quality measures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)217-226
Number of pages10
JournalJoint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety
Volume45
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2019
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Quality Improvement
Prostatic Neoplasms
Process Assessment (Health Care)
Research
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
PubMed
Databases
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Leadership and Management

Cite this

Utilization of Prostate Cancer Quality Metrics for Research and Quality Improvement : A Structured Review. / Gori, Davide; Dulal, Rajendra; Blayney, Douglas W.; Brooks, James D.; Fantini, Maria P.; McDonald, Kathryn M.; Hernandez-Boussard, Tina.

In: Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, Vol. 45, No. 3, 03.2019, p. 217-226.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Gori, Davide ; Dulal, Rajendra ; Blayney, Douglas W. ; Brooks, James D. ; Fantini, Maria P. ; McDonald, Kathryn M. ; Hernandez-Boussard, Tina. / Utilization of Prostate Cancer Quality Metrics for Research and Quality Improvement : A Structured Review. In: Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2019 ; Vol. 45, No. 3. pp. 217-226.
@article{1f08224ac3754c2ea9c3c885f0f962d6,
title = "Utilization of Prostate Cancer Quality Metrics for Research and Quality Improvement: A Structured Review",
abstract = "Background: The shift toward value-based care in the United States emphasizes the role of quality measures in payment models. Many diseases, such as prostate cancer, have a proliferation of quality measures, resulting in resource burden and physician burnout. This study aimed to identify and summarize proposed prostate cancer quality measures and describe their frequency and use in peer-reviewed literature. Methods: The PubMed database was used to identify quality measures relevant to prostate cancer care, and included articles in English through April 2018. A gray literature search for other documents was also conducted. After the selection process of the pertinent articles, measure characteristics were abstracted, and uses were summarized for the 10 most frequently utilized measures in the literature. Results: A total of 26 articles were identified for review. Of the 71 proposed prostate cancer quality measures, only 47 were used, and less than 10{\%} of these were endorsed by the National Quality Forum. Process measures were most frequently reported (84.5{\%}). Only 6 outcome measures (8.5{\%}) were proposed—none of which were among the most frequently utilized. Conclusion: Although a high number of proposed prostate cancer quality measures are reported in the literature, few were assessed, and the majority of these were non-endorsed process measures. Process measures were most commonly assessed; outcome measures were rarely evaluated. In a step to close the quality chasm, a “top 5” core set of quality measures for prostate cancer care, including structure, process, and outcomes measures, is suggested. Future studies should consider this comprehensive set of quality measures.",
author = "Davide Gori and Rajendra Dulal and Blayney, {Douglas W.} and Brooks, {James D.} and Fantini, {Maria P.} and McDonald, {Kathryn M.} and Tina Hernandez-Boussard",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcjq.2018.06.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
pages = "217--226",
journal = "Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety",
issn = "1553-7250",
publisher = "Joint Commission Resources, Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Utilization of Prostate Cancer Quality Metrics for Research and Quality Improvement

T2 - A Structured Review

AU - Gori, Davide

AU - Dulal, Rajendra

AU - Blayney, Douglas W.

AU - Brooks, James D.

AU - Fantini, Maria P.

AU - McDonald, Kathryn M.

AU - Hernandez-Boussard, Tina

PY - 2019/3

Y1 - 2019/3

N2 - Background: The shift toward value-based care in the United States emphasizes the role of quality measures in payment models. Many diseases, such as prostate cancer, have a proliferation of quality measures, resulting in resource burden and physician burnout. This study aimed to identify and summarize proposed prostate cancer quality measures and describe their frequency and use in peer-reviewed literature. Methods: The PubMed database was used to identify quality measures relevant to prostate cancer care, and included articles in English through April 2018. A gray literature search for other documents was also conducted. After the selection process of the pertinent articles, measure characteristics were abstracted, and uses were summarized for the 10 most frequently utilized measures in the literature. Results: A total of 26 articles were identified for review. Of the 71 proposed prostate cancer quality measures, only 47 were used, and less than 10% of these were endorsed by the National Quality Forum. Process measures were most frequently reported (84.5%). Only 6 outcome measures (8.5%) were proposed—none of which were among the most frequently utilized. Conclusion: Although a high number of proposed prostate cancer quality measures are reported in the literature, few were assessed, and the majority of these were non-endorsed process measures. Process measures were most commonly assessed; outcome measures were rarely evaluated. In a step to close the quality chasm, a “top 5” core set of quality measures for prostate cancer care, including structure, process, and outcomes measures, is suggested. Future studies should consider this comprehensive set of quality measures.

AB - Background: The shift toward value-based care in the United States emphasizes the role of quality measures in payment models. Many diseases, such as prostate cancer, have a proliferation of quality measures, resulting in resource burden and physician burnout. This study aimed to identify and summarize proposed prostate cancer quality measures and describe their frequency and use in peer-reviewed literature. Methods: The PubMed database was used to identify quality measures relevant to prostate cancer care, and included articles in English through April 2018. A gray literature search for other documents was also conducted. After the selection process of the pertinent articles, measure characteristics were abstracted, and uses were summarized for the 10 most frequently utilized measures in the literature. Results: A total of 26 articles were identified for review. Of the 71 proposed prostate cancer quality measures, only 47 were used, and less than 10% of these were endorsed by the National Quality Forum. Process measures were most frequently reported (84.5%). Only 6 outcome measures (8.5%) were proposed—none of which were among the most frequently utilized. Conclusion: Although a high number of proposed prostate cancer quality measures are reported in the literature, few were assessed, and the majority of these were non-endorsed process measures. Process measures were most commonly assessed; outcome measures were rarely evaluated. In a step to close the quality chasm, a “top 5” core set of quality measures for prostate cancer care, including structure, process, and outcomes measures, is suggested. Future studies should consider this comprehensive set of quality measures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053710992&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053710992&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcjq.2018.06.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jcjq.2018.06.004

M3 - Review article

C2 - 30236510

AN - SCOPUS:85053710992

VL - 45

SP - 217

EP - 226

JO - Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety

JF - Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety

SN - 1553-7250

IS - 3

ER -