Search

Background: In 2017, the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) started developing a methodological framework for a guideline-based quality assurance (QA) scheme to improve cancer quality of care. During the first phase of the work, inconsistency emerged about the use of terminology for the definition, the conceptual underpinnings and the way QA relates to health questions that are answered in guidelines. The objective of this final of three articles is to propose a conceptual framework for an integrated approach to guideline and QA development and clarify terms and definitions for key elements. This work will inform the upcoming European Commission Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (ECICC).Methods: A multidisciplinary group of 23 experts from key organizations in the fields of guideline development, performance measurement and quality assurance participated in a mixed method approach including face-to-face dialogue and several rounds of virtual meetings. Informed by results of a systematic literature review that indicated absence of an existing framework and practical examples, we first identified the relations of key elements in guideline-based QA and then developed appropriate concepts and terminology to provide guidance.Results: Our framework connects the three key concepts of quality indicators, performance measures and performance indicators integrated with guideline development. Quality indicators are constructs used as a guide to monitor, evaluate, and improve the quality of the structure, process and outcomes of healthcare services; performance measures are tools that quantify or describe measurable elements of practice performance; and performance indicators are quantifiable and measurable units or scores of practice, which should be guided by guideline recommendations.Conclusions: The inconsistency in the way key terms of QA are used and defined has confused the field. Our conceptual framework defines the role, meaning and interactions of the key elements for improving quality in healthcare. It directly builds on the questions asked in guidelines and answered through recommendations. These findings will be applied in the forthcoming ECICC and for the future updates of ECIBC. These are large-scale integrated projects aimed at improving healthcare quality across Europe through the development of guideline-based QA schemes; this will help in implementing and improving our approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) has shown a 20% relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality after 16yr [rate ratio (RR) 0.80], but centers varied by attendance, screen interval, biopsy compliance, contamination in the control arm, and treatments. We used a microsimulation model, calibrated to the ERSPC individual-level data, to predict influence of study features on the results. The relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality would have been somewhat larger with improved study features: increased attendance (90% attendance in all volunteer-based and 70% in all population-based centers, resulting in RR 0.77), a 2-yr screen interval (RR 0.75), and an 80% biopsy compliance (RR 0.79). The RR would have been substantially lower with a 30% attendance (RR 0.92), 40% biopsy compliance (RR 0.90), or 100% contamination (RR 0.85). The variations in results by trial center may reflect differences in study design and performance and results of our simulations highlight the effect of quality indicators in prostate-specific antigen screening in different settings. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated the effect of various features of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on its effectiveness. The compliance to PSA testing and those having a biopsy after an elevated PSA substantially influence the prostate cancer mortality., (Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)