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.
Moskowitz M. Breast cancer: age-specific growth rates and screening strategies. Radiology. 1986;161:37–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
King JY. Practice guidelines and medical malpractice litigation. Med Law. 1997;16(1):29–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar