Indicators to evaluate quality of care in head and neck cancer in Spain

• Juan Jesús Cruz Hernández ^[1] ; Virginia Arrazubi Arrula ^[7] ; Yolanda Escobar Álvarez ^[8] ; Almudena García Castaño ^[2] ; Juan José Grau de Castro ^[3] ; Lara Iglesias Docampo ^[4] ; Julio Lambea Sorrosal ^[5] ; Pedro Pérez Segura ^[8] ; Antonio Rueda Domínguez ^[8] ; Francisco J. Campos-Lucas ^[6] ; Irene Santamaría Rodríguez ^[6] ; Maria Bessa ^[8] ; Paula Gratal ^[8] ; Fernando Caballero-Martínez ^[6] ; Diana Monge Martín ^[6] ; Cristina Antón-Rodríguez ^[6] ; Rafael López ^[8]
  1. [1] Universidad de Salamanca

     Universidad de Salamanca

     Salamanca, España

     
  2. [2] Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla

     Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla

     Santander, España

     
  3. [3] Hospital Clinic Barcelona

     Hospital Clinic Barcelona

     Barcelona, España

     
  4. [4] Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre

     Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre

     Madrid, España

     
  5. [5] Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa

     Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa

     Zaragoza, España

     
  6. [6] Universidad Francisco de Vitoria

     Universidad Francisco de Vitoria

     Pozuelo de Alarcón, España

     
  7. [7] Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario Basurto, Bilbao
  8. [8] Fundación ECO, Madrid

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Clinical & translational oncology, ISSN 1699-048X, Vol. 26, Nº. 5, 2024, págs. 1089-1097
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Purpose This study aimed to develop a set of criteria and indicators to evaluate the quality of care of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC).

    Methods A systematic literature review was conducted to identify valuable criteria/indicators for the assessment of the quality of care in HNC. With the aid of a technical group, a scientific committee of oncologists specialised in HNC used selected criteria to propose indicators that were evaluated with a two-round Delphi method. Indicators on which consensus was achieved were then prioritised by the scientific committee to develop a final set of indicators.

    Results We proposed a list of 50 indicators used in the literature or developed by us to be evaluated with a Delphi method. There was consensus on the appropriateness of 47 indicators in the first round; the remaining 3 achieved consensus in the second round. The 50 indicators were scored to prioritise them, leading to a final selection of 29 indicators related to structure (3), process (22), or outcome (4) and covering diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and health outcomes in patients with HNC. Easy-to-use index cards were developed for each indicator, with their criterion, definition, formula for use in real-world clinical practice, rationale, and acceptable level of attainment.

    Conclusions We have developed a set of 29 evidence-based and expert-supported indicators for evaluating the quality of care in HNC, covering diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and health outcomes.