The development and acceptability of symptom management quality improvement reports based on patient-reported data: an overview of methods used in PROSSES
Patient experiences with symptom care need to be assessed and documented to ensure successful management of cancer-related symptoms. This paper details one method for creating symptom management quality improvement (SMQI) reports, including case-mix adjustment of patient-reported measures. Qualitative data regarding the acceptability of these reports at participating cancer centers (CCs) are also provided.
Data were collected from 2226 patients treated at 16 CCs via mailed/Web questionnaires. Twelve items assessing patient perceptions of symptom management—pain, fatigue, emotional distress—served as key quality indicators. Medico-demographic variables suitable for case-mix adjustment were selected using an index score combining predictive power and heterogeneity across CCs. SMQI reports were designed with staff feedback and produced for each CC, providing crude and adjusted CC-specific rates, along with study-wide rates for comparison purposes.
Cancer type and participant educational level were selected for case-mix adjustment based upon high index scores. The Kendall rank correlation coefficient showed that case-mix adjustments changed the ranking of CCs on the key quality indicators (% Δ rank range: 5–22 %). The key quality indicators varied across CCs (all p < 0.02). SMQI reports were well received by CC staff, who described plans to share them with key personnel (e.g., cancer committee, navigator).
This paper provides one method for creating hospital-level SMQI reports, including case-mix adjustment. Variation between CCs on key quality indicators, even after adjustment, suggested room for improvement. SMQI reports based on patient-reported data can inform and motivate efforts to improve care through professional/patient education and applying standards of care.
KeywordsCancer Patient-reported outcomes Quality improvement reports Case-mix adjustment Symptom management
The authors are grateful for the contributions of the patients and clinicians who participated in this study. We appreciate contributions from the PROSSES Study Group: M Sitki Copur, MD, FACP; Kendra E. Johnson, MPH, CTR; Kevin Yiee, MD, MPH; Patricia Swanson, BSN; Kristi Olesen, BSBA; Mildred Nunez Jones, CTR, BA; Michaela Sherbeck, RN, BSN, OCN, CCR. We thank Rose Menton and Lance Grove for their data collection from St. Joseph- Towson; Andrew Salner, Susan Wright and Donna Handley from Hartford Hospital; James Bearden and Lucy Gansauer from Spartanburg Regional Hospital; Craig Schulz and Nichole Nikolic from Columbia St. Mary; David Hanson, Renea Duffin, and Linda Lee from Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center; John Schallenkamp, Jo Duszkiewicz and Sarah Porter-Osen from Billings Clinic; Jay Harness and Pam Hockett from St. Joseph’s Hospital- Orange; and Debbie Salas-Lopez, Suresh Nair and Keith Weinhold from Lehigh Valley Hospital. Deborah Hill, from Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc. and Connie Hobbs, from RTI International, provided important study-related communication and administration tasks. We also acknowledge Kevin Stein, Elizabeth Ward, Otis Brawley and the American Cancer Society Mission Outcomes Committee for strategic advice.
This project has been funded by the American Cancer Society Intramural Research Department and with Federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under Contract No. HHSN261200800001E. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views of policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Jemal, A., Vineis, P., and Bray, F. (2014). The Cancer Atlas. The Cancer Atlas. July 17, 2015, http://canceratlas.cancer.org/the-burden/the-burden-of-cancer/.
- 2.Patrick, D. L., Ferketich, S. L., Frame, P. S., Harris, J. J., Hendricks, C. B., Levin, B., & Vernon, S. W. (2003). National institutes of health state-of-the-science conference statement: symptom management in cancer: Pain, depression, and fatigue, July 15–17, 2002. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 95(15), 1110–1117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Kroenke, K., Zhong, X., Theobald, D., Wu, J., Tu, W., & Carpenter, J. S. (2010). Somatic symptoms in patients with cancer experiencing pain or depression: Prevalence, disability, and health care use. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170(18), 1686–1694. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.337.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Oberguggenberger, A., Hubalek, M., Sztankay, M., Meraner, V., Beer, B., Oberacher, H., & Holzner, B. (2011). Is the toxicity of adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy underestimated? Complementary information from patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 128(2), 553–561. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1378-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Assessing the quality of cancer care: An approach to measurement in Georgia. (2005). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11244.
- 10.PROMIS. (n.d.). January 21, 2016, http://www.nihpromis.org/about/overview.
- 11.Patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). (n.d.). January 21, 2016, http://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/pro-ctcae/.
- 17.Pouw, M. E., Peelen, L. M., Lingsma, H. F., Pieter, D., Steyerberg, E., Kalkman, C. J., & Moons, K. G. (2013). Hospital standardized mortality ratio: Consequences of adjusting hospital mortality with indirect standardization. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e59160. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059160.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.NCI Community cancer centers program—About NCCCP overview. (n.d.). October 2, 2015, http://ncccp.cancer.gov/about/index.htm.
- 20.Halpern, M. T., Spain, P., Holden, D. J., Stewart, A., McNamara, E. J., Gay, G., & Clauser, S. (2013). Improving quality of cancer care at community hospitals: impact of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program pilot. Journal of Oncology Practice/American Society of Clinical Oncology, 9(6), e298–e304. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2013.000937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Siegel, R. D., Castro, K. M., Eisenstein, J., Stallings, H., Hegedus, P. D., Bryant, D. M., & Clauser, S. B. (2015). Quality improvement in the national cancer institute community cancer centers program: the quality oncology practice initiative experience. J Oncol Pract, 11(2), e247–e254. doi: 10.1200/jop.2014.000703.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Standard definitions—AAPOR. (n.d.). January 21, 2016, http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/Communications/AAPOR-Journals/Standard-Definitions.aspx.
- 23.Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (1992). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
- 24.Mittlbock, M., & Schemper, M. (1996). Explained variation for logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine, 15(19), 1987–1997. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19961015)15:19<1987:aid-sim318>3.0.co;2-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Menard, S. (2000). Coefficients of determination for multiple logistic regression analysis. The American Statistician, 54, 17–24.Google Scholar
- 26.Suchower, L. J., and Copenhaver, M. D. (n.d.). Using logistic regression to test for interaction in the presence of zero cells. http://www.lexjansen.com/nesug/nesug97/stat/suchower.pdf.
- 27.Agresti, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
- 28.Bains, N. (2009). Standardization of rates. http://www.apheo.ca/resources/indicators/Standardization%20report_NamBains_FINALMarch16.pdf.
- 29.SAS Institute Inc. (n.d.). Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
- 30.R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org.
- 31.New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. (n.d.). BES data reliability flowchart. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/bes_data_reliability.pdf.
- 32.Klein, R. J., Proctor, S. E., Boudreault, M. A., and Turczyn, K. M. (2002). Healthy people 2010 criteria for data suppression. National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statnt/statnt24.pdf.
- 33.Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI®) and the QOPI Certification Program (QCP™) | ASCO Institute For Quality. (n.d.). January 21, 2016, http://www.instituteforquality.org/qopi-qcp.
- 35.Levit, L., Balogh, E., Nass, S., and Ganz, P. A. (2013). Delivering high-quality cancer care: Charting a new course for a system in crisis. Institute of Medicine. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18359/delivering-high-quality-cancer-care-charting-a-new-course-for.
- 36.NCCN. (2015). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Adult cancer pain Version 2.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/pain.pdf.
- 37.NCCN. (2015). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Cancer-related fatigue Version 2.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/fatigue.pdf.
- 38.NCCN. (2015). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Distress management Version 1.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/distress.pdf.