Search

Background: The objective of this systematic review was to identify pre-existing quality performance indicators (QPIs) for the surgical management of oesophageal cancer (OC). These QPIs can be used to objectively measure and compare the performance of individual units and capture key elements of patient care to improve patient outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus and Embase was conducted. Articles reporting on the quality of healthcare in relation to oesophageal neoplasm or cancer and the surgical treatment of OC available until the 1st of March 2022 were included. Results: The final list of articles included retrospective reviews (n = 13), prospective reviews (n = 8), expert guidelines (n = 1) and consensus (n = 1). The final list of QPIs was categorized as process, outcome or structural measures. Process measures included multidisciplinary involvement, availability of multimodality diagnostic and treatment pathways and surgical metrics. Outcome measures included reoperation and readmission rates, the achievement of RO resection and length of hospital stay. Structural measures include multidisciplinary meetings. Conclusions: This systematic review summarizes QPIs for the surgical treatment of OC. The data will serve as an introduction to establishing a quality initiative project for OC resections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background A systematic review was undertaken to identify existing quality performance indicators (QPI) for the surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer (OC) with the aim of defining a set of QPIs that can be used in accreditation and allowing comparison of treatment and outcomes across jurisdictions, and provide a basis to develop quality improvement programs. These QPIs capture key components of patient care that are fundamental to the overall outcomes. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted by searching MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS with all literature available until the date of 1st March 2022 included. Search terms utilised were Quality of health care OR Quality improvement OR Quality control OR Quality indicators OR Benchmark, AND Oesophagectomy OR Esophagectomy OR Oesophageal neoplasm OR Esophageal Neoplasm OR Adenocarcinoma OR Squamous Cell Cancer OR Oesophageal resection OR Esophageal Resection OR Oesophageal cancer OR Esophageal Cancer OR Ivor Lewis OR Oesophageal Surgery OR Esophageal Surgery. Results Twenty-five articles were included in the final analysis. The selected studies included editorials, retrospective review, prospective review, expert guidelines and consensus. For OC QPIs, process measures included multi-disciplinary meetings, access to perioperative multimodal diagnostic pathways, and surgical metrics (margin negative resections and adequate lymphadenectomy). Outcome measures included the RO resection rate, reoperation, readmission rate, and length of hospital stay. Conclusions This systematic review summarises QPIs for the surgical management of OC. The data from this review will form the basis of a project to develop internationally agreed QPIs for OC resections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) is a lethal condition. The management is typically multifaceted with oesophagectomy being the cornerstone of treatment. Quality performance indicators (QPIs) are objective measurements of aspects of patient's care that affect clinical outcomes. We look to measure a set of clinically relevant QPIs that can be used to capture key aspects of patient management at our institution. Methods all patients with OAC treated from 2010 to 2015, and 2020 to 2021 at Te Whatu Ora Waitemata were included. Patients with secondary metastases to the oesophagus or gastric cancer with extension to the oesophagus were excluded. Electronic data in the form of clinic letters, operation notes, histology and radiology reports were reviewed. QPI adherence was collected in binary form. Results QPIs with consistently high compliance rates include radiological staging and histological diagnosis, perioperative dietitian involvement, explanations of disease and treatment intent, and pathology report documentation. QPIs demonstrating significant change and improvement across the two groups include endoscopic resection (60.0% of patients with T1 disease in 2010 to 88.9% in 2020 group), multimodality treatment (majority ECF and ECX perioperative chemotherapy in 2010 to majority FLOT chemotherapy in 2020 group) and minimally invasive approach (30.4% hybrid in 2010 compared to 72.4% hybrid in 2020). Conclusions QPIs from the systematic review were readily measurable and were variably implemented in clinical practice. Areas requiring improvement were identified however relevance to real-world clinical outcomes require further focus of investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]