Developing Cancer Quality of Care Indicators to Quantify the Impact of a Global Destabilization of the Care System (COLLAT-COVID).

IF 4.5 2区医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY

Cancers Pub Date : 2025-05-16 DOI:10.3390/cancers17101680

Nathalie Piazzon, Julie Haesebaert, Philippe Michel, Anne Sophie Belmont, Vahan Kepenekian, Gery Lamblin, Charlotte Costentin, Julien Péron

{"title":"Developing Cancer Quality of Care Indicators to Quantify the Impact of a Global Destabilization of the Care System (COLLAT-COVID).","authors":"Nathalie Piazzon, Julie Haesebaert, Philippe Michel, Anne Sophie Belmont, Vahan Kepenekian, Gery Lamblin, Charlotte Costentin, Julien Péron","doi":"10.3390/cancers17101680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background/objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic led to significant disruptions in healthcare systems, particularly impacting cancer care through delays in diagnoses and treatments. Quality indicators (QIs) are essential tools for monitoring healthcare performance, yet existing QIs may not be suited for crises. This study aimed to develop a set of hospital-based QIs tailored to assess the impact of care reorganization during health crises across four cancer types: breast cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, gynecological cancers (excluding ovarian cancer), and peritoneal carcinomatosis.Methods: A multidisciplinary steering committee (SC) conducted a five-stage process, including a literature review, indicator selection, content validation via the RAND/UCLA method, final validation by the SC, and a pilot feasibility study. QIs were assessed based on clinical relevance, reproducibility, sensitivity to change, and feasibility. Expert panels evaluated and validated the indicators in two rounds of voting.Results: Among 150 initially identified QIs, 49 were validated: 12 for breast cancer, 11 for hepatocellular carcinoma, 8 for gynecological cancers, and 18 for peritoneal carcinomatosis. Most (92%) were process indicators, covering diagnosis, treatment, and care delays. Two common indicators were identified across all four cancers: multidisciplinary team meeting discussions and psychological support consultations.Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of developing crisis-responsive QIs to monitor cancer care during health system disruptions. Future work will focus on their real-time implementation, validation in international settings, and integration into healthcare policies to enhance crisis preparedness.","PeriodicalId":9681,"journal":{"name":"Cancers","volume":"17 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12109659/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancers","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17101680","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic led to significant disruptions in healthcare systems, particularly impacting cancer care through delays in diagnoses and treatments. Quality indicators (QIs) are essential tools for monitoring healthcare performance, yet existing QIs may not be suited for crises. This study aimed to develop a set of hospital-based QIs tailored to assess the impact of care reorganization during health crises across four cancer types: breast cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, gynecological cancers (excluding ovarian cancer), and peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Methods: A multidisciplinary steering committee (SC) conducted a five-stage process, including a literature review, indicator selection, content validation via the RAND/UCLA method, final validation by the SC, and a pilot feasibility study. QIs were assessed based on clinical relevance, reproducibility, sensitivity to change, and feasibility. Expert panels evaluated and validated the indicators in two rounds of voting.

Results: Among 150 initially identified QIs, 49 were validated: 12 for breast cancer, 11 for hepatocellular carcinoma, 8 for gynecological cancers, and 18 for peritoneal carcinomatosis. Most (92%) were process indicators, covering diagnosis, treatment, and care delays. Two common indicators were identified across all four cancers: multidisciplinary team meeting discussions and psychological support consultations.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of developing crisis-responsive QIs to monitor cancer care during health system disruptions. Future work will focus on their real-time implementation, validation in international settings, and integration into healthcare policies to enhance crisis preparedness.

查看原文本刊更多论文

制定癌症护理质量指标以量化全球护理系统不稳定的影响（COLLAT-COVID）。

背景/目的：2019冠状病毒病大流行导致医疗保健系统严重中断，特别是由于诊断和治疗延误而影响癌症护理。质量指标（QIs）是监控医疗保健绩效的重要工具，但现有的质量指标可能不适合危机。本研究旨在开发一套以医院为基础的质量指标，以评估四种癌症类型的健康危机期间护理重组的影响：乳腺癌、肝细胞癌、妇科癌症（不包括卵巢癌）和腹膜癌。方法：一个多学科指导委员会（SC）进行了一个五阶段的过程，包括文献综述、指标选择、通过RAND/UCLA方法进行内容验证、由SC进行最终验证和试点可行性研究。QIs的评估基于临床相关性、可重复性、变化敏感性和可行性。专家小组在两轮投票中评估和验证了这些指标。结果：在最初确定的150个QIs中，49个得到了验证：12个用于乳腺癌，11个用于肝细胞癌，8个用于妇科癌症，18个用于腹膜癌。大多数（92%）是过程指标，包括诊断、治疗和护理延误。在所有四种癌症中确定了两个共同指标：多学科团队会议讨论和心理支持咨询。结论：本研究证明了在卫生系统中断期间开发危机响应性质量指标以监测癌症护理的可行性。未来的工作将侧重于它们的实时实施、在国际环境下的验证以及纳入医疗保健政策，以加强危机防范。

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

Cancers Medicine-Oncology

CiteScore

8.00

自引率

9.60%

发文量

5371

审稿时长

18.07 days

期刊介绍： Cancers (ISSN 2072-6694) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal on oncology. It publishes reviews, regular research papers and short communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.