Monitoring quality of care for patients with pancreatic cancer: a modified Delphi consensus.

Maharaj, AD; Ioannou, L; Croagh, D; Zalcberg, J; Neale, RE; Goldstein, D; Merrett, N; Kench, JG; White, K; Pilgrim, CHC; Chantrill, L; Cosman, P; Kneebone, A; Lipton, L; Nikfarjam, M; Philip, J; Sandroussi, C; Tagkalidis, P; Chye, R; Haghighi, KS; Samra, J; Evans, SM

Monitoring quality of care for patients with pancreatic cancer: a modified Delphi consensus.

Maharaj, AD Ioannou, L Croagh, D Zalcberg, J Neale, RE Goldstein, D Merrett, N Kench, JG White, K Pilgrim, CHC Chantrill, L Cosman, P Kneebone, A Lipton, L Nikfarjam, M Philip, J Sandroussi, C Tagkalidis, P Chye, R Haghighi, KS Samra, J Evans, SM

Permalink

Publisher:: Elsevier
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: HPB, 2019, 21, (4), pp. 444-455
Issue Date:: 2019-04

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	1-s2.0-S1365182X18339480-main.pdf	Published version	5.53 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Maharaj, AD
dc.contributor.author	Ioannou, L
dc.contributor.author	Croagh, D
dc.contributor.author	Zalcberg, J
dc.contributor.author	Neale, RE
dc.contributor.author	Goldstein, D
dc.contributor.author	Merrett, N
dc.contributor.author	Kench, JG
dc.contributor.author	White, K
dc.contributor.author	Pilgrim, CHC
dc.contributor.author	Chantrill, L
dc.contributor.author	Cosman, P
dc.contributor.author	Kneebone, A
dc.contributor.author	Lipton, L
dc.contributor.author	Nikfarjam, M
dc.contributor.author	Philip, J
dc.contributor.author	Sandroussi, C
dc.contributor.author	Tagkalidis, P
dc.contributor.author	Chye, R
dc.contributor.author	Haghighi, KS
dc.contributor.author	Samra, J
dc.contributor.author	Evans, SM
dc.date.accessioned	2020-06-05T21:11:58Z
dc.date.available	2018-08-31
dc.date.available	2020-06-05T21:11:58Z
dc.date.issued	2019-04
dc.identifier.citation	HPB, 2019, 21, (4), pp. 444-455
dc.identifier.issn	1365-182X
dc.identifier.issn	1477-2574
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/141148
dc.description.abstract	BACKGROUND:Best practise care optimises survival and quality of life in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC), but there is evidence of variability in management and suboptimal care for some patients. Monitoring practise is necessary to underpin improvement initiatives. We aimed to develop a core set of quality indicators that measure quality of care across the disease trajectory. METHODS:A modified, three-round Delphi survey was performed among experts with wide experience in PC care across three states in Australia. A total of 107 potential quality indicators were identified from the literature and divided into five areas: diagnosis and staging, surgery, other treatment, patient management and outcomes. A further six indicators were added by the panel, increasing potential quality indicators to 113. Rated on a scale of 1-9, indicators with high median importance and feasibility (score 7-9) and low disagreement (<1) were considered in the candidate set. RESULTS:From 113 potential quality indicators, 34 indicators met the inclusion criteria and 27 (7 diagnosis and staging, 5 surgical, 4 other treatment, 5 patient management, 6 outcome) were included in the final set. CONCLUSIONS:The developed indicator set can be applied as a tool for internal quality improvement, comparative quality reporting, public reporting and research in PC care.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Elsevier
dc.relation.ispartof	HPB
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.hpb.2018.08.016
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.subject	1103 Clinical Sciences
dc.subject.classification	Surgery
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Pancreatic Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasm Staging
dc.subject.mesh	Consensus
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Delphi Technique
dc.subject.mesh	Quality Indicators, Health Care
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Pancreatic Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasm Staging
dc.subject.mesh	Consensus
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Delphi Technique
dc.subject.mesh	Quality Indicators, Health Care
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Consensus
dc.subject.mesh	Delphi Technique
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasm Staging
dc.subject.mesh	Pancreatic Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Quality Indicators, Health Care
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.title	Monitoring quality of care for patients with pancreatic cancer: a modified Delphi consensus.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	21
utslib.location.activity	England
utslib.for	1103 Clinical Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2020-06-05T21:11:54Z
pubs.issue	4
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	21
utslib.start-page	444
utslib.citation.issue	4

Abstract:

BACKGROUND:Best practise care optimises survival and quality of life in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC), but there is evidence of variability in management and suboptimal care for some patients. Monitoring practise is necessary to underpin improvement initiatives. We aimed to develop a core set of quality indicators that measure quality of care across the disease trajectory. METHODS:A modified, three-round Delphi survey was performed among experts with wide experience in PC care across three states in Australia. A total of 107 potential quality indicators were identified from the literature and divided into five areas: diagnosis and staging, surgery, other treatment, patient management and outcomes. A further six indicators were added by the panel, increasing potential quality indicators to 113. Rated on a scale of 1-9, indicators with high median importance and feasibility (score 7-9) and low disagreement (<1) were considered in the candidate set. RESULTS:From 113 potential quality indicators, 34 indicators met the inclusion criteria and 27 (7 diagnosis and staging, 5 surgical, 4 other treatment, 5 patient management, 6 outcome) were included in the final set. CONCLUSIONS:The developed indicator set can be applied as a tool for internal quality improvement, comparative quality reporting, public reporting and research in PC care.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/141148