Quality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematic review.

dc.contributor.authorMaes-Carballo, Marta
dc.contributor.authorGómez-Fandiño, Yolanda
dc.contributor.authorReinoso-Hermida, Ayla
dc.contributor.authorEstrada-López, Carlos Roberto
dc.contributor.authorMartín-Díaz, Manuel
dc.contributor.authorKhan, Khalid Saeed
dc.contributor.authorBueno-Cavanillas, Aurora
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-07T17:03:18Z
dc.date.available2025-01-07T17:03:18Z
dc.date.issued2021-07-02
dc.description.abstractWe evaluated breast cancer (BC) care quality indicators (QIs) in clinical pathways and integrated health care processes. Following protocol registration (Prospero no: CRD42021228867), relevant documents were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE), health care valuable representatives and the World Wide Web in April 2021. Data concerning QIs, measurement tools and compliance standards were extracted from European and North American sources in duplicate with 98% reviewer agreement. There were 89 QIs found from 22 selected documents (QI per document mean 13.5 with standard deviation 11.9). The Belgian (38 QIs) and the EUSOMA (European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists) (34 QIs) documents were the ones that best reported the QIs. No identical QI was identified in all the documents analysed. There were 67/89 QIs covering processes (75.3%) and 11/89 (12.4%) for each structure and outcomes QIs. There were 21/89 QIs for diagnosis (30.3%), 43/89 for treatment (48.3%), and 19/89 for staging, counselling, follow-up and rehabilitation (21.4%). Of 67 process QIs and 11 outcome QIs, 20/78 (26%) did not report a minimum standard of care. Shared decision making was only included as a QI in the Italian document. More than half of countries have not established a national clinical pathway or integrated breast cancer care process to achieve the excellence of BC care. There was heterogeneity in QIs for the evaluation of BC care quality. Over two-thirds of the clinical pathways and integrated health care processes did not provide a minimum auditable standard of care for compliance, leaving open the definition of best practice. There is a need for harmonisation of BC care QIs.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.breast.2021.06.013
dc.identifier.essn1532-3080
dc.identifier.pmcPMC8322135
dc.identifier.pmid34298301
dc.identifier.pubmedURLhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8322135/pdf
dc.identifier.unpaywallURLhttp://www.thebreastonline.com/article/S0960977621004082/pdf
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10668/28146
dc.journal.titleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)
dc.journal.titleabbreviationBreast
dc.language.isoen
dc.organizationInstituto de Investigación Biosanitaria de Granada (ibs.GRANADA)
dc.organizationSAS - D.S.A.P. Granada Sur
dc.organizationInstituto de Investigación Biosanitaria de Granada (ibs.GRANADA)
dc.page.number221-231
dc.pubmedtypeJournal Article
dc.pubmedtypeReview
dc.pubmedtypeSystematic Review
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
dc.rights.accessRightsopen access
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subjectBreast cancer care”
dc.subject“Health care”
dc.subject“Quality care”
dc.subject“Quality indicators”
dc.subject.meshBreast Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshDelivery of Health Care
dc.subject.meshFemale
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshQuality Indicators, Health Care
dc.subject.meshQuality of Health Care
dc.titleQuality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematic review.
dc.typeresearch article
dc.type.hasVersionVoR
dc.volume.number59

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
PMC8322135.pdf
Size:
501.42 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format