Quality indicators and development targets in the national clinical quality registries in cancer care and screening.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Amalie Helme Simoni, Lina Marie Vinge Ahlstrøm, Anne Gulbech Ording, Lene Hjerrild Iversen, Søren Paaske Johnsen, Jens Winther Jensen, Henrik Møller
{"title":"Quality indicators and development targets in the national clinical quality registries in cancer care and screening.","authors":"Amalie Helme Simoni, Lina Marie Vinge Ahlstrøm, Anne Gulbech Ording, Lene Hjerrild Iversen, Søren Paaske Johnsen, Jens Winther Jensen, Henrik Møller","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Danish clinical quality registries monitor and improve the quality of care, using quality indicators and defined development targets referred to as 'standards'. This study aims to investigate the fulfilment of standards in the Danish clinical quality registries in cancer care and screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data was included from annual reports in the 27 Danish clinical quality registries in cancer care and screening. The most recent report from each registry was downloaded the 13 December 2023. Indicators were included if: evaluating care or screening over 12 months, presenting a well-defined standard with a desired direction and presenting the proportion and number of individuals for which the standard was fulfilled. Data were extracted on national and regional levels for the last 3 years, and fulfilment of standards was presented as the proportion of indicators that fulfilled the standard within each unit of comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 216 quality indicators were included. At the national and regional level, standards were fulfilled for 75% and 71%, respectively. Fulfilment within the registries varied from 5% to 100% on national and 12% to 99% on regional level. Standards were more often fulfilled for result (than process indicators) and for established (than supplemental indicators). Altogether, 43% of the standards were fulfilled across all regions delivering data for the specific indicator.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The approach to defining standards for clinical quality indicators as conservative minimum or ambitious development targets varied in the Danish clinical quality registries in cancer care and screening. This deviating behaviour seriously restrains possibilities for comparing clinical quality across cancers despite the robust infrastructure of the quality registries, limiting the possibilities for overview and prioritising resources and attention to the most urgent cancers.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11751976/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Danish clinical quality registries monitor and improve the quality of care, using quality indicators and defined development targets referred to as 'standards'. This study aims to investigate the fulfilment of standards in the Danish clinical quality registries in cancer care and screening.

Methods: Data was included from annual reports in the 27 Danish clinical quality registries in cancer care and screening. The most recent report from each registry was downloaded the 13 December 2023. Indicators were included if: evaluating care or screening over 12 months, presenting a well-defined standard with a desired direction and presenting the proportion and number of individuals for which the standard was fulfilled. Data were extracted on national and regional levels for the last 3 years, and fulfilment of standards was presented as the proportion of indicators that fulfilled the standard within each unit of comparison.

Results: In total, 216 quality indicators were included. At the national and regional level, standards were fulfilled for 75% and 71%, respectively. Fulfilment within the registries varied from 5% to 100% on national and 12% to 99% on regional level. Standards were more often fulfilled for result (than process indicators) and for established (than supplemental indicators). Altogether, 43% of the standards were fulfilled across all regions delivering data for the specific indicator.

Conclusions: The approach to defining standards for clinical quality indicators as conservative minimum or ambitious development targets varied in the Danish clinical quality registries in cancer care and screening. This deviating behaviour seriously restrains possibilities for comparing clinical quality across cancers despite the robust infrastructure of the quality registries, limiting the possibilities for overview and prioritising resources and attention to the most urgent cancers.

国家癌症治疗和筛查临床质量登记的质量指标和发展目标。
背景:丹麦临床质量登记处使用被称为“标准”的质量指标和确定的发展目标来监测和改善护理质量。本研究旨在调查丹麦临床质量登记处在癌症护理和筛查方面的标准实现情况。方法:数据来自27个丹麦癌症护理和筛查临床质量注册中心的年度报告。每个注册中心的最新报告于2023年12月13日下载。指标包括:评估12个月以上的护理或筛查,提出明确定义的标准和期望的方向,并提出满足标准的个人比例和人数。数据取自近3年的国家和地区两级,达标情况以每个比较单位内达标指标的比例表示。结果:共纳入216项质量指标。国家标准完成率为75%,地区标准完成率为71%。登记处的履约情况在全国范围内从5%到100%不等,在区域一级从12%到99%不等。结果指标(而不是过程指标)和既定指标(而不是补充指标)的标准往往得到满足。在提供具体指标数据的所有区域,总共实现了43%的标准。结论:在丹麦癌症治疗和筛查的临床质量登记中,将临床质量指标定义为保守的最低目标或雄心勃勃的发展目标的方法各不相同。这种偏离行为严重限制了比较不同癌症临床质量的可能性,尽管质量登记处有健全的基础设施,限制了概述和优先考虑资源和关注最紧迫癌症的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信