TY - JOUR
T1 - Quality indicators of end-of-life care in patients with cancer
T2 - What rate is right?
AU - Barbera, Lisa
AU - Seow, Hsien
AU - Sutradhar, Rinku
AU - Chu, Anna
AU - Burge, Fred
AU - Fassbender, Konrad
AU - McGrail, Kim
AU - Lawson, Beverley
AU - Liu, Ying
AU - Pataky, Reka
AU - Potapov, Alex
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.
PY - 2015/5/1
Y1 - 2015/5/1
N2 - Purpose: To develop data-driven and achievable benchmark rates for end-of-life quality indicators using administrative data from four provinces in Canada. Methods: Indicators of end-of-life care were defined and measured using linked administrative data for 33 health regions across British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. These were emergency department use, intensive care unit admission, physician house calls and home care visits before death, and death in hospital. An empiric benchmark was defined using indicator rates from the top-ranked regions to include the top decile of patients overall. Funnel plots were used to graph each region's age- and sex-adjusted indicator rates along with the overall rate and 95% confidence limits. Results: Rates varied approximately two- to four-fold across the regions, with physician house calls showing the greatest variation. Benchmark rates based on the top decile performers were emergency department use, 34%; intensive care unit admission, 2%; physician house calls, 34%; home care visits, 63%; and death in hospital, 38%. With the exception of intensive care unit admission, funnel plots demonstrated that overall indicator rates and their confidence limits were uniformly worse than benchmarks even after adjusting for age and sex. Few regions met the benchmark rates. Conclusion: There is significant variation in end-of-life quality indicators across regions in four provinces in Canada. Using this study's methods-deriving empiric benchmarks and funnel plots-regions can determine their relative performance with greater context that facilitates priority setting and resource deployment. Applying this study's methods can support quality improvement by decreasing variation and striving for a target.
AB - Purpose: To develop data-driven and achievable benchmark rates for end-of-life quality indicators using administrative data from four provinces in Canada. Methods: Indicators of end-of-life care were defined and measured using linked administrative data for 33 health regions across British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. These were emergency department use, intensive care unit admission, physician house calls and home care visits before death, and death in hospital. An empiric benchmark was defined using indicator rates from the top-ranked regions to include the top decile of patients overall. Funnel plots were used to graph each region's age- and sex-adjusted indicator rates along with the overall rate and 95% confidence limits. Results: Rates varied approximately two- to four-fold across the regions, with physician house calls showing the greatest variation. Benchmark rates based on the top decile performers were emergency department use, 34%; intensive care unit admission, 2%; physician house calls, 34%; home care visits, 63%; and death in hospital, 38%. With the exception of intensive care unit admission, funnel plots demonstrated that overall indicator rates and their confidence limits were uniformly worse than benchmarks even after adjusting for age and sex. Few regions met the benchmark rates. Conclusion: There is significant variation in end-of-life quality indicators across regions in four provinces in Canada. Using this study's methods-deriving empiric benchmarks and funnel plots-regions can determine their relative performance with greater context that facilitates priority setting and resource deployment. Applying this study's methods can support quality improvement by decreasing variation and striving for a target.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84929677534&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84929677534&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1200/JOP.2015.004416
DO - 10.1200/JOP.2015.004416
M3 - Article
C2 - 25922219
AN - SCOPUS:84929677534
SN - 1554-7477
VL - 11
SP - e279-e287
JO - Journal of Oncology Practice
JF - Journal of Oncology Practice
IS - 3
ER -