Criteria and indicators to evaluate quality of care in genitourinary tumour boards

• Javier Puente ^[1] ; Daniel Castellano Gauna ^[7] ; Ignacio Durán ^[7] ; Paula Gratal ^[7] ; María Teresa Pardo ^[7] ; Vicente Guillem Porta ^[7] ; Ferrán Algaba Arrea ^[8] ; Óscar Buisán Rueda ^[9] ; Juan José Fernández Ávila ^[2] ; Alfonso Gómez Iturriaga ^[10] ; Mariano José Parada Blázquez ^[3] ; Daniel Pérez Fentes ^[4] ; Gemma Sancho Pardo ^[5] ; Juan Antonio Vallejo Casas ^[6]
  1. [1] Hospital Clínico San Carlos de Madrid

     Hospital Clínico San Carlos de Madrid

     Madrid, España

     
  2. [2] Hospital Virgen de la Arrixaca

     Hospital Virgen de la Arrixaca

     Murcia, España

     
  3. [3] Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío

     Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío

     Sevilla, España

     
  4. [4] Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago

     Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago

     Santiago de Compostela, España

     
  5. [5] Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau

     Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau

     Barcelona, España

     
  6. [6] Hospital Universitario Reina Sofia

     Hospital Universitario Reina Sofia

     Cordoba, España

     
  7. [7] Fundación ECO (Excelencia y Calidad de La Oncología), Madrid, Spain
  8. [8] Servicio de Anatomía Patológica, Fundació Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain
  9. [9] Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain
  10. [10] Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Hospital Universitario de Cruces, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Biobizkaia, Vizcaya, Spain

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Clinical & translational oncology, ISSN 1699-048X, Vol. 26, Nº. 7, 2024, págs. 1639-1646
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Purpose Genitourinary (GU) multidisciplinary tumour boards (GUMTBs) are key components of patient care, as they might lead to changes in treatment plan, improved survival, and increased adherence to guidelines. However, there are no guidelines on how GUMTBs should operate or how to assess their quality of performance.

    Methods A systematic literature review was conducted to identify criteria and indicators to evaluate quality in GUMTBs. A scientifc committee—comprising 12 GU cancer specialists from seven disciplines—proposed a list of criteria and developed indicators, evaluated in two rounds of Delphi method. Appropriateness and utility of indicators were scored using a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defned as at least two-thirds of Delphi respondents selecting a score sub-category that encompassed the median score of the group.

    Results Forty-fve criteria were selected to evaluate the quality of GUMTBs covering fve dimensions: organisation, personnel, protocol and documentation, resources, and interaction with patients. Then, 33 indicators were developed and evaluated in the frst round of Delphi, leading to a selection of 26 indicators in two dimensions: function, governance and resources, and GUMTB sessions. In the second round, consensus was reached on the appropriateness of all 26 indicators and on the utility of 24 of them. Index cards for criteria and indicators were developed to be used in clinical practice.

    Conclusions Criteria and indicators were developed to evaluate the quality of GUMTBs, aiming to serve as a guide to improve quality of care and health outcomes in patients with GU cancer.