Implementation of Quality Improvement Interventions in Medical Oncology: A Systematic Review.

IF 4.6 3区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Georgia Zachou, Sukumar S Sugeeta, Joanna Dodkins, Adil Rashid, Julie Nossiter, Agnieszka Michael, Julie Gralow, Ajay Aggarwal
{"title":"Implementation of Quality Improvement Interventions in Medical Oncology: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Georgia Zachou, Sukumar S Sugeeta, Joanna Dodkins, Adil Rashid, Julie Nossiter, Agnieszka Michael, Julie Gralow, Ajay Aggarwal","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-00289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>As global cancer rates rise, the demand for effective, high-quality delivery of systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) is crucial. However, quality improvement (QI) research in medical oncology remains limited. This systematic review aims to identify and characterize QI interventions addressing quality deficits in medical oncology practice, focusing on intervention types, methodologies, and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of EMBASE and MEDLINE was conducted from January 2000 to November 2024, following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42024579992). Studies were included if they evaluated a QI intervention in medical oncology using a baseline measurement and aiming to address a predefined quality deficit in patient-related outcomes. Data on study design, intervention types, quality deficits, and outcomes were extracted, and study quality was assessed using the QI Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 11,655 studies identified, 28 met the inclusion criteria. Five key themes emerged: waiting times for SACT delivery at infusion visits, delays in commencement of initial SACT, optimal utilization of SACT, side effects of SACT, and safety. Most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 17), at a single center (n = 27) with only one national-level study. Funding was reported in three studies (two industry-sponsored, one philanthropic). All studies demonstrated a positive impact on at least one patient-related outcome measure. QI-MQCS scores ranged from 11 to 16 of 16.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although cancer treatment continues to evolve, QI strategies in medical oncology remain underexplored. While all identified interventions were beneficial, generalizability is limited by single-center settings and methodological constraints. Expansion of QI research beyond the United States, adoption of stronger study designs, and increased investment in QI training and infrastructure are needed. Multilevel support and sustainable funding are essential to scale up evidence-based QI efforts and improve oncology care globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2500289"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO oncology practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-25-00289","RegionNum":3,"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

Purpose: As global cancer rates rise, the demand for effective, high-quality delivery of systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) is crucial. However, quality improvement (QI) research in medical oncology remains limited. This systematic review aims to identify and characterize QI interventions addressing quality deficits in medical oncology practice, focusing on intervention types, methodologies, and outcomes.

Methods: A systematic search of EMBASE and MEDLINE was conducted from January 2000 to November 2024, following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42024579992). Studies were included if they evaluated a QI intervention in medical oncology using a baseline measurement and aiming to address a predefined quality deficit in patient-related outcomes. Data on study design, intervention types, quality deficits, and outcomes were extracted, and study quality was assessed using the QI Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS).

Results: Of the 11,655 studies identified, 28 met the inclusion criteria. Five key themes emerged: waiting times for SACT delivery at infusion visits, delays in commencement of initial SACT, optimal utilization of SACT, side effects of SACT, and safety. Most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 17), at a single center (n = 27) with only one national-level study. Funding was reported in three studies (two industry-sponsored, one philanthropic). All studies demonstrated a positive impact on at least one patient-related outcome measure. QI-MQCS scores ranged from 11 to 16 of 16.

Conclusion: Although cancer treatment continues to evolve, QI strategies in medical oncology remain underexplored. While all identified interventions were beneficial, generalizability is limited by single-center settings and methodological constraints. Expansion of QI research beyond the United States, adoption of stronger study designs, and increased investment in QI training and infrastructure are needed. Multilevel support and sustainable funding are essential to scale up evidence-based QI efforts and improve oncology care globally.

肿瘤内科质量改善干预措施的实施:系统综述。
目的:随着全球癌症发病率的上升,对有效、高质量的全身抗癌治疗(SACT)的需求至关重要。然而,肿瘤内科质量改进(QI)的研究仍然有限。本系统综述旨在识别和描述肿瘤医学实践中针对质量缺陷的QI干预措施,重点关注干预类型、方法和结果。方法:根据PRISMA指南(PROSPERO: CRD42024579992),于2000年1月至2024年11月对EMBASE和MEDLINE进行系统检索。如果研究使用基线测量评估肿瘤内科的QI干预措施,并旨在解决患者相关结果中预先定义的质量缺陷,则纳入研究。提取有关研究设计、干预类型、质量缺陷和结果的数据,并使用QI最低质量标准集(QI- mqcs)评估研究质量。结果:在纳入的11655项研究中,有28项符合纳入标准。出现了五个关键主题:输液访问时SACT交付的等待时间,初始SACT开始的延迟,SACT的最佳利用,SACT的副作用和安全性。大多数研究是在美国进行的(n = 17),在一个单一的中心(n = 27),只有一个国家级的研究。三项研究报告了资金来源(两项由行业赞助,一项由慈善机构赞助)。所有的研究都证明至少对一项患者相关的结果测量有积极的影响。QI-MQCS得分从11分到16分不等。结论:尽管肿瘤治疗不断发展,但QI在医学肿瘤学中的策略仍未得到充分探索。虽然所有确定的干预措施都是有益的,但泛化性受到单中心设置和方法约束的限制。在美国以外扩展QI研究,采用更强的研究设计,并增加对QI培训和基础设施的投资是必要的。多层次的支持和可持续的资助对于扩大以证据为基础的QI工作和改善全球肿瘤护理至关重要。
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
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
518
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信