Differences in the quality of care for women with an abnormal mammogram or breast complaint
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with variation in the quality of care for women with 2 common breast problems: an abnormal mammogram or a clinical breast complaint.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional patient survey and medical record review.
SETTING: Ten general internal medicine practices in the Greater Boston area.
PARTICIPANTS: Women who had an abnormal radiographic result from a screening mammogram or underwent mammography for a clinical breast complaint (N=579).
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three measures of the quality of care were used: (1) whether or not a woman received an evaluation in compliance with a clinical guideline; (2) the number of days until the appropriate resolution of this episode of breast care if any; and (3) a woman’s overall satisfaction with her care. Sixty-nine percent of women received care consistent with the guideline. After adjustment, women over 50 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% [CI], 1.06 to 2.36) and those with an abnormal mammogram (compared with a clinical breast complaint: OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.16 to 2.64) were more likely to receive recommended care and had a shorter time to resolution of their breast problem. Women with a managed care plan were also more likely to receive care in compliance with the guideline (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.64) and have a more timely resolution. There were no differences in satisfaction by age or type of breast problem, but women with a managed care plan were less likely to rate their care as excellent (43% vs 53%, P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS: We found that a substantial proportion of women with a breast problem managed by generalists did not receive care consistent with a clinical guideline, particularly younger women with a clinical breast complaint and a normal or benign-appearing mammogram.
- Diercks DB, Cady B. Lawsuits for failure to diagnose breast cancer. Surgi Oncol Clin Am. 1994;3(1):125–36.
- Schaefer MA, ed. Risk Management and Breast Cancer. Vol 19. Cambridge, Mass; 1998.
- Smith B. Algorithms for management of common breast complaints. Forum: Harvard Risk Management Foundation. July 1995:1–5.
- Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1989.
- Cox DR. Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc B. 1972;34:187–220.
- Dewar MA, Love N. Legal issues in managing breast disease. Postgrad Med. 1992;92(5):137–51.
- Spratt JS, Spratt SW. Medical and legal implications of screening and follow-up procedures for breast cancer. Cancer. 1990;66(6 suppl):1351–62. CrossRef
- Plotkin D, Blankenberg F. Breast cancer: biology and malpractice. Am J Clin Oncol. 1991;14(3):254–66. CrossRef
- Moskowitz M. Breast cancer: age-specific growth rates and screening strategies. Radiology. 1986;161:37–41.
- Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA. 1996;276(1):33–8. CrossRef
- Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Brennan TA, et al. Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:245–51. CrossRef
- Brennan TA, Localio AR, Leape LL, et al. Identification of adverse events occurring during hospitalization: a cross-sectional study of litigation, quality assurance, and medical records at two teaching hospitals. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112:221–6.
- Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(16):1089–96. CrossRef
- Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography: risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. JAMA. 1996;276:39–43. CrossRef
- Cady B, Steele GD Jr, Morrow M, et al. Evaluation of common breast problems: guidance for primary care providers. CA Cancer J Clin. 1998;48(1):49–63.
- King JY. Practice guidelines and medical malpractice litigation. Med Law. 1997;16(1):29–39.
- Chang SW, Kerlikowske K, Napoles-Springer A, Posner SF, Sickles EA, Perez-Stable EJ. Racial differences in timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography. Cancer. 1996;78:1395–402. CrossRef
- Howard J, Hankey BF, Greenberg RS, et al. A collaborative study of differences in the survival rates of black patients and white patients with cancer. Cancer. 1992;69(9):2349–60. CrossRef
- Eley JW, Hill HA, Chen VW, et al. Racial differences in survival from breast cancer. JAMA. 1994;272:947–54. CrossRef
- Mandelblatt J, Andrews H, Kerner J, Zauber A, Burnett W. Determinants of late stage diagnosis of breast and cervical cancer. Am J Public Health. 1991;81:646–9. CrossRef
- Differences in the quality of care for women with an abnormal mammogram or breast complaint
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Volume 15, Issue 5 , pp 321-328
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- quality of care
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. the Division of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, Calif
- 2. the Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, Calif
- 3. Division of General Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass
- 4. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass