Sean M. O'Neill

Cancer quality-ASSIST supportive oncology quality indicator set feasibility, reliability, and validity testing

Although measuring the quality of symptom management and end‐of‐life care could help provide a basis for improving supportive care for advanced cancer, few quality indicators in this area have been rigorously developed or evaluated.

How can we recognize continuous quality improvement

Objective Continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods are foundational approaches to improving healthcare delivery. Publications using the term CQI, however, are methodologically heterogeneous, and labels other than CQI are used to signify relevant approaches. Standards for identifying the use of CQI based on its key methodological features could enable more effective learning across quality improvement (QI) efforts. The objective was to identify essential methodological features for recognizing CQI. Design Previous work with a 12-member international expert panel identified reliably abstracted CQI methodological features. We tested which features met rigorous a priori standards as essential features of CQI using a three-phase online modified-Delphi process. Setting Primarily United States and Canada. Participants 119 QI experts randomly assigned into four on-line panels. Intervention(s) Participants rated CQI features and discussed their answers using online, anonymous and asynchronous discussion boards. We analyzed ratings quantitatively and discussion threads qualitatively. Main outcome measure(s) Panel consensus on definitional CQI features. Results Seventy-nine (66%) panelists completed the process. Thirty-three completers self-identified as QI researchers, 18 as QI practitioners and 28 as both equally. The features ‘systematic data guided activities,’ ‘designing with local conditions in mind’ and ‘iterative development and testing’ met a priori standards as essential CQI features. Qualitative analyses showed cross-cutting themes focused on differences between QI and CQI. Conclusions We found consensus among a broad group of CQI researchers and practitioners on three features as essential for identifying QI work more specifically as ‘CQI.’ All three features are needed as a minimum standard for recognizing CQI methods.

Identifying continuous quality improvement publications: what makes an improvement intervention ‘CQI’?

Background The term continuous quality improvement (CQI) is often used to refer to a method for improving care, but no consensus statement exists on the definition of CQI. Evidence reviews are critical for advancing science, and depend on reliable definitions for article selection. Methods As a preliminary step towards improving CQI evidence reviews, this study aimed to use expert panel methods to identify key CQI definitional features and develop and test a screening instrument for reliably identifying articles with the key features. We used a previously published method to identify 106 articles meeting the general definition of a quality improvement intervention (QII) from 9427 electronically identified articles from PubMed. Two raters then applied a six-item CQI screen to the 106 articles. Results Per cent agreement ranged from 55.7% to 75.5% for the six items, and reviewer-adjusted intra-class correlation ranged from 0.43 to 0.62. ‘Feedback of systematically collected data’ was the most common feature (64%), followed by being at least ‘somewhat’ adapted to local conditions (61%), feedback at meetings involving participant leaders (46%), using an iterative development process (40%), being at least ‘somewhat’ data driven (34%), and using a recognised change method (28%). All six features were present in 14.2% of QII articles. Conclusions We conclude that CQI features can be extracted from QII articles with reasonable reliability, but only a small proportion of QII articles include all features. Further consensus development is needed to support meaningful use of the term CQI for scientific communication.

Quality of Supportive Care for Patients with Advanced Cancer in a VA Medical Center

PURPOSE Using the Assessing Symptoms Side Effects and Indicators of Supportive Treatment (ASSIST) quality indicators (QIs), we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the quality of care provided in our institution to patients diagnosed with advanced cancer in 2006. METHODS Patients diagnosed with a Stage IV solid tumor were identified from the hospitals cancer registry. Using data abstracted from medical records, care was assessed using 41 explicit QIs. Mean percent adherence to QIs was calculated overall, as well as across five clinical domains: (1) Pain, (2) Depression and Psychosocial Distress, (3) Dyspnea, (4) Treatment Toxicity, (5) Other Symptoms, and (6) Information and Care Planning. RESULTS The study cohort (n = 118) was almost all male (2% female) and mean age was 65.9 years (standard deviation [SD] 9.9 years). The most common cancers were lung and head and neck cancer (23% each); 17% had prostate cancer; 13% had colorectal cancer; and the rest (24%) had breast, esophageal, stomach, genitourinary, liver/biliary, or pancreas cancer. Patients received 51% (95% confidence interval [CI] 48%-54%) of recommended care. Adherence to recommended care within domains ranged from 38% (95% CI 35%-42%) for Other Symptoms to 79% (95% CI 73%-86%) for Information and Care Planning. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that the quality of supportive care for patients with advanced cancer can be greatly improved. Future efforts should use the ASSIST indicators to evaluate the quality of supportive care in larger and more diverse cohorts of advanced cancer patients.

Educating future physicians to track health care quality: feasibility and perceived impact of a health care quality report card for medical students.

Purpose Quality improvement (QI) requires measurement, but medical schools rarely provide opportunities for students to measure their patient outcomes. The authors tested the feasibility and perceived impact of a quality metric report card as part of an Education-Centered Medical Home longitudinal curriculum. Method Student teams were embedded into faculty practices and assigned a panel of patients to follow longitudinally. Students performed retrospective chart reviews and reported deidentified data on 30 nationally endorsed QI metrics for their assigned patients. Scorecards were created for each clinic team. Students completed pre/post surveys on self-perceived QI skills. Results A total of 405 of their patients’ charts were abstracted by 149 students (76% response rate; mean 2.7 charts/student). Median abstraction time was 21.8 (range: 13.1–37.1) minutes. Abstracted data confirmed that the students had successfully recruited a “high-risk” patient panel. Initial performance on abstracted quality measures ranged from 100% adherence on the use of beta-blockers in postmyocardial infarction patients to 24% on documentation of dilated diabetic eye exams. After the chart abstraction assignment, grand rounds, and background readings, student self-assessment of their perceived QI skills significantly increased for all metrics, though it remained low. Conclusions Creation of an actionable health care quality report card as part of an ambulatory longitudinal experience is feasible, and it improves student perception of QI skills. Future research will aim to use statistical process control methods to track health care quality prospectively as our students use their scorecards to drive clinic-level improvement efforts.

Effectiveness of interventions to improve the efficiency of emergency department operations: An evidence map

by the current literature: How well did this intervention work, and what did it take (e.g. resources, time) to implement it? An evidence map [1] can help take stock of a highly variable evidence base, illustrate gaps, and guide research planning in ways that willmake future studiesmore useful for decision-makers. This approach presents results in a graphical format to quickly identify gaps and research needs. Therefore, we sought to broadly describe a range of ED efficiency improvement studies using evidence mapping. A systematic literature

Peritransplant pancreatitis: A marker of high mortality and graft failure in liver transplant patients

Perioperative pancreatitis is a significant comorbid condition in surgical patients. However, the degree to which pancreatitis affects graft and overall survival in liver transplant recipients has not been evaluated. This study assesses the impact of pancreatitis on graft and patient survival in adult orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). All patients undergoing OLT at a single academic institution from 2007 to 2015 were reviewed. Pancreatitis was classified by method of diagnosis (intraoperative/radiographic [IO/R] versus isolated serologic diagnosis) and timing (preoperative versus postoperative diagnosis). Twenty‐three patients were identified with peritransplant pancreatitis (within 30 days preoperatively or postoperatively). A control group of patients without pancreatitis undergoing OLT was composed of 775 patients. Graft failure/death rates for patients with versus without pancreatitis were 7.4% versus 7.4% at 30 days, 33.3% versus 12.6% at 90 days, and 44.4% versus 26.9% at 12 months. Four patients with pancreatitis (17.4%) required emergent retransplantation and subsequently died within 90 days of their second transplant. Overall, 6 patients with pancreatitis (26.1%) died within 90 days of transplantation. Patients with pancreatitis had a hazard ratio (HR) for death or graft failure of 2.28 as compared with controls (P < 0.01). The effect of pancreatitis is most pronounced among those diagnosed by IO/R findings, with an adjusted HR of 2.53 (P < 0.01) and those diagnosed in the postoperative period, adjusted HR of 2.57 (P = 0.01). In conclusion, perioperative pancreatitis is associated with early graft failure and patient mortality, regardless of the method or timing of the diagnosis. Given these results, IO/R findings of pancreatitis should induce caution and potentially preclude OLT until resolved. Liver Transplantation 23 925–932 2017 AASLD.