Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Measures to evaluate quality of care in renal cancer: results of a Delphi study in Spain

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Clinical and Translational Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This article has been updated

Abstract

Purpose

To review current measures for renal cancer care and develop a comprehensive and updated list of measures for their practical use in Spain.

Methods

The study was developed by Fundación ECO, a Spanish foundation aiming to improve oncology quality of care. A systematic literature review was carried out to identify measures and knowledge gaps. A scientific committee composed of nine experts reviewed the literature findings and added measures. A preliminary list of 42 measures was evaluated with the Delphi method to gather feedback from 47 medical oncology experts in Spain. Experts scored the appropriateness of the measures and ranked their priority in two consecutive online surveys. The scientific committee reviewed the Delphi results and developed the measures. A technical group from Universidad Francisco de Vitoria conducted and oversaw the Delphi method.

Results

The Delphi method led to consensus on all 42 measures. The scientific committee used a prioritisation matrix to select 25 of these measures for evaluating quality of care in renal cancer. These measures regarded structure, process, and outcome and covered general management, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and evaluation of health outcomes. Easy-to-use index cards were developed for all 25 measures, including their definition, formula, acceptable level of attainment, and rationale.

Conclusions

This manuscript aims to provide healthcare professionals with expert- and evidence-based measures that are useful for evaluating quality of care in renal cancer in Spain and cover all aspects and stages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 17 April 2022

    The original online version of this article was revised: to include the supplementary material.

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(1):7–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, Colombet M, Mery L, Piñeros M, et al. Global cancer observatory: cancer today. 2020. https://gco.iarc.fr/today. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.

  3. Surveillance epidemiology and end results database. Cancer of the kidney and renal pelvis—SEER 18, relative survival by stage (2010–2017). 2021.

  4. Karanikolos M, Ellis L, Coleman MP, McKee M. Health systems performance and cancer outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2013;46:7–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chiang AC. Why the quality oncology practice initiative matters: it’s not just about cost. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ B. 2016;36:e102–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lawson KA, Saarela O, Abouassaly R, Kim SP, Breau RH, Finelli A. The impact of quality variations on patients undergoing surgery for renal cell carcinoma: a national cancer database study. Eur Urol. 2017;72(3):379–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Peabody H, Patel A, Johnson A, Mirza M, Noyes SL, Schervish E, et al. Development of a novel scoring system quantifies opportunities to reduce surgery for benign renal neoplasms: a retrospective quality improvement analysis within the MUSIC-KIDNEY Collaborative. J Urol. 2020;204(6):1160–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnson K, Lane BR, Weizer AZ, Herrel LA, Rogers CG, Qi J, et al. Partial nephrectomy should be classified as an inpatient procedure: results from a statewide quality improvement collaborative. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2021;S1078–1439(21):00001–6.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Moideen N, Marzouk KH, Matheson KJ, Wood LA. Measuring quality care in localized renal cell cancer: use of appropriate preoperative investigations in a population-based cohort. Curr Oncol. 2017;24(2):e152–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Scottish Cancer Taksforce National Cancer Quality Steering Group. Renal cancer clinical quality performance indicators (v3.1). 2017.

  11. Wood L, Bjarnason GA, Black PC, Cagiannos I, Heng DYC, Kapoor A, et al. Using the delphi technique to improve clinical outcomes through the development of quality indicators in renal cell carcinoma. J Oncol Pract. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2012.000870.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI®). 2021. https://practice.asco.org/quality-improvement/quality-programs/quality-oncology-practice-initiative/qopi-related-measures. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.

  13. Sociedad Española de Calidad Asistencial. Indicadores de calidad para hospitales del sistema nacional de salud [Quality measures for hospitals belonging to the national public health system]. 2012 http://www.calidadasistencial.es/images/gestion/biblioteca/335.pdf.

  14. Fitch K, J BS, Aguilar MD, Burnand B, LaCalle JR, Lazaro P, et al. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. 2001.

  15. Beers MH, Ouslander JG, Rollingher I, Reuben DB, Brooks J, Beck JC. Explicit criteria for determining inappropriate medication use in nursing home residents. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151(9):1825–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Asociación Española de Urología. Indicadores de Calidad Asistencial en Urología. 2011. https://www.aeu.es/userfiles/indicadoresdecalidadenurologia.pdf.

  17. D’Amico TA, Bandini LAM, Balch A, Benson AB, Edge SB, Lyn Fitzgerald C, et al. Quality measurement in cancer care: a review and endorsement of high-impact measures and concepts. JNCCN J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2020;18(3):250–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stewart K, Bray B, Buckingham R. Improving quality of care through national clinical audit. Futur Hosp J. 2016;3(3):203–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hess LM, Pohl G. Perspectives of quality care in cancer treatment: a review of the literature. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2013;6(6):321.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Brown B, Gude WT, Blakeman T, Van Der Veer SN, Ivers N, Francis JJ, et al. Clinical performance feedback intervention theory (CP-FIT): a new theory for designing, implementing, and evaluating feedback in health care based on a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Implement Sci. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0883-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe EO on HS and P, Busse R, Klazinga N, Panteli D, Quentin W. Improving healthcare quality in Europe: Characteristics, effectiveness and implementation of different strategies. Improv Healthc Qual Eur. 2019.

  23. Spanish Ministry of Health Consumer Affairs and Social Welfare. Healthcare systems in the European Union countries—Health characteristics and indicators. 2019 https://www.mscbs.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/docs/presentacion_en.pdf.

  24. Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, Sibony O, Alberti C. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020476.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the experts who participated in the Delphi study. The authors also thank Angela Rynne Vidal, PhD, for providing medical writing services, and Irene Santamaría Rodríguez from Universidad Francisco Vitoria for providing project support.

Funding

This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fundación ECO (Excelencia Y Calidad de La Oncología), Madrid, Spain

    Vicente Guillem Porta, Carlos Camps, Miguel Ángel Climent Durán, Aránzazu González del Alba, Martín Lázaro-Quintela, Javier Puente, Ilse Lugo, Álvaro Rogado & Ignacio Durán

  2. Medical Oncology Department, Servicio de Oncología Médica, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Carrer del Professor Beltrán Báguena, 8, 46009, València, Spain

    Vicente Guillem Porta & Miguel Ángel Climent Durán

  3. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital General de Valencia, CIBERONC, València, Spain

    Carlos Camps

  4. Oncology Department, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari. Institut d’Investigació I Innovació Parc Taulí I3PT, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Sabadell, Spain

    Enrique Gallardo

  5. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain

    Aránzazu González del Alba

  6. Medical Oncology Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain

    Martín Lázaro-Quintela

  7. Oncology Translational Research Group (ONCOINVES), Galicia Sur Health Research Institute, Vigo, Spain

    Martín Lázaro-Quintela

  8. Medical Oncology Department, Maimonides Institute for Biomedical Research of Córdoba, Hospital Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain

    María José Méndez Vidal

  9. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain

    Álvaro Pinto Marín

  10. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), CIBERONC, Madrid, Spain

    Javier Puente

  11. Unidad de apoyo a La Investigación, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid, Spain

    Cristina Antón-Rodríguez

  12. Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid, Spain

    Fernando Caballero-Martínez

  13. Unidad de Consultoría E Investigación en Salud, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid, Spain

    Francisco J. Campos-Lucas

  14. Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Instituto de Investigación Marqués de Valdecilla (IDIVAL), Santander, Spain

    Ignacio Durán

Authors
  1. Vicente Guillem Porta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlos Camps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miguel Ángel Climent Durán
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Enrique Gallardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aránzazu González del Alba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Martín Lázaro-Quintela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. María José Méndez Vidal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Álvaro Pinto Marín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Javier Puente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Cristina Antón-Rodríguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Fernando Caballero-Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Francisco J. Campos-Lucas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Ilse Lugo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Álvaro Rogado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Ignacio Durán
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vicente Guillem Porta.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

María José Méndez Vidal has received honoraria for honoraria for speaker and advisory role from Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, MSD, Bayer, Pfizer, Eisai, Ipsen, Sanofi, Roche, and BMS. Miguel Ángel Climent Durán has received honoraria for speaker engagements or advisory roles from BMS, Astellas, Janssen, MSD, Sanofi, Bayer, Roche, Pfizer, EUNSA, Pierre Fabre, Novartis and Ipsen; and travel funding from Janssen, Astellas, Roche, Ipsen, and MSD. Enrique Gallardo has received honoraria for speaker engagements, advisory roles or continuous medical education from Sanofi, Janssen, Astellas, Bayer, Ipsen, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, BMS, AstraZeneca, Merck, Rovi, Daiichi Sankyo, Techdow, Rovi, Leo Pharma, Menarini, and Boehringer-Ingelheim; consulting fees from Merck and EUSA Pharma; and grant support from Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi, Bayer, Ipsen, Ferrer, Pfizer, Roche, GSK, BMS. Aránzazu González del Alba has received honoraria for speaker engagements, advisory roles or continuous medical education from Astellas, Sanofi, Astra Zeneca, Eusa Pharma, Janssen, Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, Ipsen, Roche, BMS, and Pierre Fabre; research funding from Astellas; and consulting fees from Astellas, Janssen. Martín Lázaro-Quintela reports honoraria for speaker engagements, advisory roles or continuous medical education from Roche, Eisai, Astellas, Janssen, Astra-Zeneca, MSD, Bayer, Pfizer, Eusa, Ipsen, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche, BMS, Merck, and Boehringer-Ingelheim; and research funding from Roche, Pfizer, and Janssen. Álvaro Pinto has received honoraria for advisory roles or participation in clinical trials from Pfizer, Novartis, Ipsen, BMS, Janssen, Astellas, Sanofi, Bayer, Clovis, Pharmacyclics, Astra Zeneca, Eisai, Roche, MSD, Pierre Fabre and Merck; research funding from Pfizer and BMS; and travel funding from Janssen, Roche, Pfizer, BMS, and Ipsen. Javier Puente has received honoraria for speaker engagements, advisory roles, or continuous medical education from Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, MSD, Bayer, Pfizer, Eisai, Ipsen, Sanofi, Roche, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Merck; research funding from Astellas and Pfizer; and consulting fees from Astellas and Roche. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

This study did not involve humans and did not require approval from an Ethical Committee.

Informed consent

This study did not involve humans and informed consent was not necessary.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 77 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guillem Porta, V., Camps, C., Climent Durán, M.Á. et al. Measures to evaluate quality of care in renal cancer: results of a Delphi study in Spain. Clin Transl Oncol 24, 495–502 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-021-02703-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-021-02703-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation