TY - JOUR
T1 - Quality indicators for the evaluation of patients with lung cancer
AU - Mazzone, Peter J.
AU - Vachani, Anil
AU - Chang, Andrew
AU - Detterbeck, Frank
AU - Cooke, David
AU - Howington, John
AU - Dodi, Amos
AU - Arenberg, Douglas
N1 - Funding Information:
Several evidence-based guidelines with sections pertinent to the evaluation and staging of lung cancer were reviewed to guide the initial development of the quality indicators. These included lung cancer guidelines from CHEST, 7–11 the European Respiratory Society/European Society of Thoracic Surgeons, 12 the British Thoracic Society, 13 the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 14 the European Society for Medical Oncology, 15,16 the Sociodad Espanola de Neumologfa y Cirugfa Toraclca, 17 and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 18 These guidelines varied in their scope, and, at times, in their recommendations. A summary of the recommendations from each guideline relevant to this project is available in e-Tables 1-3 .
PY - 2014/9/1
Y1 - 2014/9/1
N2 - BACKGROUND: Ideally, quality indicators are developed with the input of professional groups involved in the care of patients. This project, led by the Thoracic Oncology Network and Quality Improvement Committee of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), had the goal of developing quality indicators related to the evaluation and staging of patients with lung cancer.METHODS: Evidence-based guidelines were used to generate a list of process-of-care quality indicators, and project members revised the content and wording of this list. A survey of the Steering Committee of the Thoracic Oncology Network was performed to rate the validity feasibility, and relevance of the indicators. Predefined thresholds were used to select indicators from the list. This process was repeated for the selected indicators through a survey available to all members of the Thoracic Oncology Network. Three academic medical centers determined if the surviving indicators were feasible and relevant within their practices.RESULTS: Eighteen quality indicators were draft ed. Eleven survived the first round of voting and seven survived the second round of voting. One was related to tissue acquisition for molecular testing, four were related to staging and stage documentation, one was related to smoking cessation counseling, and one was related to documentation of a performance status measure. The indicators were feasible and relevant within the practices assessed.CONCLUSIONS: We have defined seven process-of-care quality indicators related to the evaluation and staging of patients with lung cancer, which are felt to be valid, feasible, and relevant by lung cancer specialists.
AB - BACKGROUND: Ideally, quality indicators are developed with the input of professional groups involved in the care of patients. This project, led by the Thoracic Oncology Network and Quality Improvement Committee of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), had the goal of developing quality indicators related to the evaluation and staging of patients with lung cancer.METHODS: Evidence-based guidelines were used to generate a list of process-of-care quality indicators, and project members revised the content and wording of this list. A survey of the Steering Committee of the Thoracic Oncology Network was performed to rate the validity feasibility, and relevance of the indicators. Predefined thresholds were used to select indicators from the list. This process was repeated for the selected indicators through a survey available to all members of the Thoracic Oncology Network. Three academic medical centers determined if the surviving indicators were feasible and relevant within their practices.RESULTS: Eighteen quality indicators were draft ed. Eleven survived the first round of voting and seven survived the second round of voting. One was related to tissue acquisition for molecular testing, four were related to staging and stage documentation, one was related to smoking cessation counseling, and one was related to documentation of a performance status measure. The indicators were feasible and relevant within the practices assessed.CONCLUSIONS: We have defined seven process-of-care quality indicators related to the evaluation and staging of patients with lung cancer, which are felt to be valid, feasible, and relevant by lung cancer specialists.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84907194309&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84907194309&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1378/chest.13-2900
DO - 10.1378/chest.13-2900
M3 - Article
C2 - 24700172
AN - SCOPUS:84907194309
SN - 0012-3692
VL - 146
SP - 659
EP - 669
JO - Chest
JF - Chest
IS - 3
ER -
