National Evaluation of Hospital Performance on the New Commission on Cancer Melanoma Quality Measures

Christina A. Minami, Jeffrey D Wayne, Anthony D Yang, Mary C. Martini, Pedram Gerami, Sunandana Chandra, Timothy M. Kuzel, David P. Winchester, Bryan E. Palis, Karl Y Bilimoria*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: To increase adherence to cancer management guidelines, the Commission on Cancer (CoC) developed and approved five melanoma quality measures in 2015. Our objectives were to evaluate formally the national performance of these melanoma measures and to examine patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics associated with adherence. Methods: From the National Cancer Data Base (2012), patients with invasive, nonmetastatic melanoma were identified. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on the CoC definition for each measure. Patient-level and hospital-level adherence rates were calculated for the five measures. A hospital was deemed “compliant” if it met the CoC standard, which requires 80 % of patients to receive the measure-specific recommended care. Patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics potentially associated with higher likelihood of adherence at the patient-level were estimated using hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. Results: A total of 31,598 patients from 1343 hospitals were examined. Patient-level adherence rates varied from 31.6 % (Measure 5: ≥10 axillary lymph nodes removed/examined) to 72.6 % (Measure 1: sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) appropriateness measure). Hospital-level adherence rates, ranged from 19.3 % of hospitals (N = 538 hospitals for Measure 5) to 44.8 % of hospitals (N = 1090 hospitals for Measure 3: completion lymph node dissection after positive SLNB). No hospital-level factors (e.g., teaching status) were consistently associated with better adherence. Conclusions: National adherence rates to the five new CoC melanoma quality metrics are low, and most hospitals would not meet the CoC requirement of 80 % adherence. Feedback for performance of these measures to hospitals, decisions support tools, and educational initiatives are needed to improve guideline adherence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3548-3557
Number of pages10
JournalAnnals of Surgical Oncology
Volume23
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2016

Fingerprint

Melanoma
Neoplasms
Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
Patient Compliance
Logistic Models
Guideline Adherence
Lymph Node Excision
Teaching
Lymph Nodes
Databases
Guidelines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Oncology

Cite this

Minami, Christina A. ; Wayne, Jeffrey D ; Yang, Anthony D ; Martini, Mary C. ; Gerami, Pedram ; Chandra, Sunandana ; Kuzel, Timothy M. ; Winchester, David P. ; Palis, Bryan E. ; Bilimoria, Karl Y. / National Evaluation of Hospital Performance on the New Commission on Cancer Melanoma Quality Measures. In: Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2016 ; Vol. 23, No. 11. pp. 3548-3557.
@article{f662f2bda95746fe9f98896aef06393b,
title = "National Evaluation of Hospital Performance on the New Commission on Cancer Melanoma Quality Measures",
abstract = "Introduction: To increase adherence to cancer management guidelines, the Commission on Cancer (CoC) developed and approved five melanoma quality measures in 2015. Our objectives were to evaluate formally the national performance of these melanoma measures and to examine patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics associated with adherence. Methods: From the National Cancer Data Base (2012), patients with invasive, nonmetastatic melanoma were identified. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on the CoC definition for each measure. Patient-level and hospital-level adherence rates were calculated for the five measures. A hospital was deemed “compliant” if it met the CoC standard, which requires 80 {\%} of patients to receive the measure-specific recommended care. Patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics potentially associated with higher likelihood of adherence at the patient-level were estimated using hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. Results: A total of 31,598 patients from 1343 hospitals were examined. Patient-level adherence rates varied from 31.6 {\%} (Measure 5: ≥10 axillary lymph nodes removed/examined) to 72.6 {\%} (Measure 1: sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) appropriateness measure). Hospital-level adherence rates, ranged from 19.3 {\%} of hospitals (N = 538 hospitals for Measure 5) to 44.8 {\%} of hospitals (N = 1090 hospitals for Measure 3: completion lymph node dissection after positive SLNB). No hospital-level factors (e.g., teaching status) were consistently associated with better adherence. Conclusions: National adherence rates to the five new CoC melanoma quality metrics are low, and most hospitals would not meet the CoC requirement of 80 {\%} adherence. Feedback for performance of these measures to hospitals, decisions support tools, and educational initiatives are needed to improve guideline adherence.",
author = "Minami, {Christina A.} and Wayne, {Jeffrey D} and Yang, {Anthony D} and Martini, {Mary C.} and Pedram Gerami and Sunandana Chandra and Kuzel, {Timothy M.} and Winchester, {David P.} and Palis, {Bryan E.} and Bilimoria, {Karl Y}",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1245/s10434-016-5302-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "3548--3557",
journal = "Annals of Surgical Oncology",
issn = "1068-9265",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "11",

}

National Evaluation of Hospital Performance on the New Commission on Cancer Melanoma Quality Measures. / Minami, Christina A.; Wayne, Jeffrey D; Yang, Anthony D; Martini, Mary C.; Gerami, Pedram; Chandra, Sunandana; Kuzel, Timothy M.; Winchester, David P.; Palis, Bryan E.; Bilimoria, Karl Y.

In: Annals of Surgical Oncology, Vol. 23, No. 11, 01.10.2016, p. 3548-3557.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - National Evaluation of Hospital Performance on the New Commission on Cancer Melanoma Quality Measures

AU - Minami, Christina A.

AU - Wayne, Jeffrey D

AU - Yang, Anthony D

AU - Martini, Mary C.

AU - Gerami, Pedram

AU - Chandra, Sunandana

AU - Kuzel, Timothy M.

AU - Winchester, David P.

AU - Palis, Bryan E.

AU - Bilimoria, Karl Y

PY - 2016/10/1

Y1 - 2016/10/1

N2 - Introduction: To increase adherence to cancer management guidelines, the Commission on Cancer (CoC) developed and approved five melanoma quality measures in 2015. Our objectives were to evaluate formally the national performance of these melanoma measures and to examine patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics associated with adherence. Methods: From the National Cancer Data Base (2012), patients with invasive, nonmetastatic melanoma were identified. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on the CoC definition for each measure. Patient-level and hospital-level adherence rates were calculated for the five measures. A hospital was deemed “compliant” if it met the CoC standard, which requires 80 % of patients to receive the measure-specific recommended care. Patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics potentially associated with higher likelihood of adherence at the patient-level were estimated using hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. Results: A total of 31,598 patients from 1343 hospitals were examined. Patient-level adherence rates varied from 31.6 % (Measure 5: ≥10 axillary lymph nodes removed/examined) to 72.6 % (Measure 1: sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) appropriateness measure). Hospital-level adherence rates, ranged from 19.3 % of hospitals (N = 538 hospitals for Measure 5) to 44.8 % of hospitals (N = 1090 hospitals for Measure 3: completion lymph node dissection after positive SLNB). No hospital-level factors (e.g., teaching status) were consistently associated with better adherence. Conclusions: National adherence rates to the five new CoC melanoma quality metrics are low, and most hospitals would not meet the CoC requirement of 80 % adherence. Feedback for performance of these measures to hospitals, decisions support tools, and educational initiatives are needed to improve guideline adherence.

AB - Introduction: To increase adherence to cancer management guidelines, the Commission on Cancer (CoC) developed and approved five melanoma quality measures in 2015. Our objectives were to evaluate formally the national performance of these melanoma measures and to examine patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics associated with adherence. Methods: From the National Cancer Data Base (2012), patients with invasive, nonmetastatic melanoma were identified. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on the CoC definition for each measure. Patient-level and hospital-level adherence rates were calculated for the five measures. A hospital was deemed “compliant” if it met the CoC standard, which requires 80 % of patients to receive the measure-specific recommended care. Patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics potentially associated with higher likelihood of adherence at the patient-level were estimated using hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. Results: A total of 31,598 patients from 1343 hospitals were examined. Patient-level adherence rates varied from 31.6 % (Measure 5: ≥10 axillary lymph nodes removed/examined) to 72.6 % (Measure 1: sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) appropriateness measure). Hospital-level adherence rates, ranged from 19.3 % of hospitals (N = 538 hospitals for Measure 5) to 44.8 % of hospitals (N = 1090 hospitals for Measure 3: completion lymph node dissection after positive SLNB). No hospital-level factors (e.g., teaching status) were consistently associated with better adherence. Conclusions: National adherence rates to the five new CoC melanoma quality metrics are low, and most hospitals would not meet the CoC requirement of 80 % adherence. Feedback for performance of these measures to hospitals, decisions support tools, and educational initiatives are needed to improve guideline adherence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84976254625&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84976254625&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1245/s10434-016-5302-4

DO - 10.1245/s10434-016-5302-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 27278202

AN - SCOPUS:84976254625

VL - 23

SP - 3548

EP - 3557

JO - Annals of Surgical Oncology

JF - Annals of Surgical Oncology

SN - 1068-9265

IS - 11

ER -