Establishing metastatic prostate cancer quality indicators using a modified Delphi approach
(2022) In Clinical Genitourinary Cancer 20(2). p.151-157- Abstract
Background: There is variation in the care provided to men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). There has been no previous set of quality indicators (QIs) regarding the management of men with mPCa. The objective of this study is to develop a set of international mPCa-specific QIs, which will enable global benchmarking of quality of care. Materials and methods: Potential QIs were identified through a literature review. Fourteen multidisciplinary mPCa experts (representing medical and radiation oncology, nursing, psychology, palliative care and urology) from eight countries participated in a modified Delphi process, which consisted of two online surveys, one face-to-face meeting and two teleconferences. Panelists were asked to rate... (More)
Background: There is variation in the care provided to men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). There has been no previous set of quality indicators (QIs) regarding the management of men with mPCa. The objective of this study is to develop a set of international mPCa-specific QIs, which will enable global benchmarking of quality of care. Materials and methods: Potential QIs were identified through a literature review. Fourteen multidisciplinary mPCa experts (representing medical and radiation oncology, nursing, psychology, palliative care and urology) from eight countries participated in a modified Delphi process, which consisted of two online surveys, one face-to-face meeting and two teleconferences. Panelists were asked to rate each indicator's importance and feasibility on a Likert scale from 1 to 9. Indicators that received median importance and median feasibility scores ≥ 7.5, and a disagreement index <1 for both measures, on the final round of voting were included in the final set. Results: There was consensus on 23 QIs out of total of 662. Four regarding “general management”, 12 “therapies”, three “complications” and four “patient-reported quality of life”. One of the inherent limitations of the Delphi process is that there is a small expert panel involved. Conclusion: The quality indicator set defined by our process for management of men with mPCa will enable greater understanding of the standard and variation of care globally and will promote consistency of good practice. Future directions will include retrospective evaluation for compliance with these indicators, as well as prospective monitoring.
(Less)
- author
- organization
- publishing date
- 2022
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Expert panel, Metastatic disease, Multidisciplinary, Quality of care, Survey
- in
- Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
- volume
- 20
- issue
- 2
- pages
- 151 - 157
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85124162885
- pmid:35135748
- ISSN
- 1558-7673
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.clgc.2021.11.018
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- e392317c-0ff6-4038-a06b-a5720f79caad
- date added to LUP
- 2022-04-06 11:23:13
- date last changed
- 2024-06-19 23:52:45
@article{e392317c-0ff6-4038-a06b-a5720f79caad,
abstract = {{<p>Background: There is variation in the care provided to men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). There has been no previous set of quality indicators (QIs) regarding the management of men with mPCa. The objective of this study is to develop a set of international mPCa-specific QIs, which will enable global benchmarking of quality of care. Materials and methods: Potential QIs were identified through a literature review. Fourteen multidisciplinary mPCa experts (representing medical and radiation oncology, nursing, psychology, palliative care and urology) from eight countries participated in a modified Delphi process, which consisted of two online surveys, one face-to-face meeting and two teleconferences. Panelists were asked to rate each indicator's importance and feasibility on a Likert scale from 1 to 9. Indicators that received median importance and median feasibility scores ≥ 7.5, and a disagreement index <1 for both measures, on the final round of voting were included in the final set. Results: There was consensus on 23 QIs out of total of 662. Four regarding “general management”, 12 “therapies”, three “complications” and four “patient-reported quality of life”. One of the inherent limitations of the Delphi process is that there is a small expert panel involved. Conclusion: The quality indicator set defined by our process for management of men with mPCa will enable greater understanding of the standard and variation of care globally and will promote consistency of good practice. Future directions will include retrospective evaluation for compliance with these indicators, as well as prospective monitoring.</p>}},
author = {{Zheng, Jia and Sampurno, Fanny and George, Daniel J. and Morgans, Alicia K. and Nguyen, Hannah and Abrahm, Janet L. and Bjartell, Anders and Davis, Ian D. and Fitch, Margaret I. and Gillessen, Silke and Kanesvaran, Ravindran and Matthew, Andrew and Millar, Jeremy L. and O'Sullivan, Joe M. and Payne, Heather and Pouliot, Frederic and Yates, Patsy and Evans, Sue M.}},
issn = {{1558-7673}},
keywords = {{Expert panel; Metastatic disease; Multidisciplinary; Quality of care; Survey}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{2}},
pages = {{151--157}},
publisher = {{Elsevier}},
series = {{Clinical Genitourinary Cancer}},
title = {{Establishing metastatic prostate cancer quality indicators using a modified Delphi approach}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2021.11.018}},
doi = {{10.1016/j.clgc.2021.11.018}},
volume = {{20}},
year = {{2022}},
}