Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 2/2010

01-02-2010 | Breast Oncology

National Quality Measures for Breast Centers (NQMBC): A Robust Quality Tool

Breast Center Quality Measures

Authors: C. S. Kaufman, MD, FACS, L. Shockney, RN, BS, MAS, CBPN-C, B. Rabinowitz, PhD, MSW, RN, C. Coleman, RN, OCN, C. Beard, J. Landercasper, MD, FACS, J. B. Askew Jr., MD, D. Wiggins, Quality Initiative Committee

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 2/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Measuring and improving quality of care is of primary interest to patients, clinicians, and payers. The National Consortium of Breast Centers (NCBC) has created a unique program to assess and compare the quality of interdisciplinary breast care provided by breast centers across the country.

Methods

In 2005 the NCBC Quality Initiative Committee formulated their initial series of 37 measurements of breast center quality, eventually called the National Quality Measures for Breast Centers (NQMBC). Measures were derived from published literature as well as expert opinion. An interactive website was created to enter measurement data from individual breast centers and to provide customized comparison reports. Breast centers submit information using data they collect over a single month on consecutive patients. Centers can compare their results with centers of similar size and demographic or compare themselves to all centers who supplied answers for individual measures. New data may be submitted twice yearly. Serially submitted data allow centers to compare themselves over time. NQMBC random audits confirm accuracy of submitted data. Early results on several initial measures are reported here.

Results

Over 200 centers are currently submitting data to the NQMBC via the Internet without charge. These measures provide insight regarding timeliness of care provided by radiologists, surgeons, and pathologists. Results are expressed as the mean average, as well as 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles for each metric. This sample of seven measures includes data from over 30,000 patients since 2005, representing a powerful database. In addition, comparison results are available every 6 months, recognizing that benchmarks may change over time.

Conclusions

A real-time web-based quality improvement program facilitates breast center input, providing immediate comparisons with other centers and results serially over time. Data may be used by centers to recognize high-quality care they provide or to identify areas for quality improvement. Initial results demonstrate the power and potential of web-based tools for data collection and analysis from hundreds of centers who care for thousands of patients.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Perkins C, Balma D, Garcia R; Members of the Consensus Group; Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Why current breast pathology practices must be evaluated. A Susan G. Komen for the Cure white paper: June 2006. Breast J. 2007;13:443–7.
8.
Malin J, Schneider EC, Epstein AM, Adams J, Emanuel EJ, Kahn KL. Results of the National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality: How Can We Improve the Quality of Cancer Care in the United States? J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:626–34.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Neumayer L, Hosokawa P, Itani K, El-Tamer M, Henderson WG, Khuri SF. Multivariable predictors of postoperative surgical site infection after general and vascular surgery: results from the patient safety in surgery study. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:1178–87.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Khuri SF, Henderson WG, Daley J, Jonasson O, Lones RS, Campbell DA Jr. et al. Successful implementation of the Department of Veterans Affairs” National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in the private sector: the Patient Safety in Surgery Study. Ann Surg. 2008;248:329–36.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Committee on Redesigning Health Insurance Performance Measures, Payment, and Performance Improvement Programs, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Executive Summary. Rewarding Provider Performance: Aligning Incentives in Medicare. The National Academies Press, Sept 2006. http://​www.​nap.​edu/​catalog/​11723.​html. Accessed February 20, 2009.
12.
Hoy E. Measuring patient experiences of care. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2008;93:13–16.PubMed
13.
Sharp BA, Meikle SF, James MD, Steiner C, Remus D. NHQR/NHDR measures for women of reproductive age. Med Care. 2005;43 suppl:164–71.CrossRef
14.
Andersen MR, Bowen DJ, Morea J, Stein KD, Baker F. Involvement in decision-making and breast cancer survivor quality of life. Health Psychol. 2009;28:29–37.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Waljee JF, Hawley S, Alderman AK, Morrow M, Katz SJ. Patient satisfaction with treatment of breast cancer: does surgeon specialization matter? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3694–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
18.
19.
Zarbo RJ, Gephardt GN, Howanitz PJ. Intralaboratory timeliness of surgical pathology reports. Results of two College of American Pathologists Q-Probes studies of biopsies and complex specimen. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:234–44.PubMed
20.
Novis DA, Zarbo RJ, Saladino AJ. Interinstitutional comparison of surgical biopsy diagnosis turnaround time: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 5384 surgical biopsies in 157 small hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:951–6.PubMed
21.
Nakhleh RE, Jones B, Zarbo RJ. Mammographically directed breast biopsies: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of clinical physician expectations and of specimen handling and reporting characteristics in 434 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121:11–8.PubMed
22.
Buyske J. For the protection of the public and the good of the specialty: Maintenance of certification. Arch Surg. 2009;144:101–3.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Williams SC, Schmaltz SP, Morton DJ, Koss RG, Loeb JM. Quality of care in U.S. hospitals as reflected by standardized measures, 2002–2004. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:255–264.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Lindenauer PK, Remus D, Roman S, Rothberg MB, Benjamin EM, Ma A, et al. Public reporting and pay for performance in hospital quality improvement. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:486–96.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Mainz J. Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15:523–30.CrossRef
26.
Donaldson M, ed. Measuring the quality of health care: a statement by the National Roundtable on Health Care Quality. Washington, DC: National Academy; 1999.
27.
28.
Tisnado DM, Rose-Ash DE, Malin JL, Adams JL, Ganz PA, Kahn KL. Financial incentives for quality in breast cancer care. Am J Manag Care. 2008;14:457–66.PubMed
29.
Rosenthal MB, Frank RG, Li Z, Epstein AM. Early experience with pay-for-performance: from concept to practice. JAMA. 2005;294:1788–93.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Personal communication, Lillie Shockney RN, BS, MAS, May, 2005.
31.
Kothari A, Fentiman IS. Diagnostic delays in breast cancer and impact on survival. Int J Clin Pract. 2003;57:200–3.PubMed
32.
Burack RC, Simon MS, Stano M, George J, Coombs J. Follow-up among women with an abnormal mammogram in an HMO: is it complete, timely, and efficient? Am J Manag Care. 2000;6:1102–13.PubMed
33.
Olivotto IA, Kan L, King S. Waiting for a diagnosis after an abnormal screening mammogram. SMPBC diagnostic process workgroup. Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia. Can J Public Health. 2000;91:113–7.PubMed
34.
Perez G, Porta M, Borrell C, Casamitjana M, et al. Interval from diagnosis to treatment onset for six major cancers in Catalonia, Spain. Cancer Detect Prev. 2008;32:267–75.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Psooy BJ, Schreuer D, Borgaonkar J, Caines JS. Patient navigation: improving timeliness in the diagnosis of breast abnormalities. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2004;55:145–50.PubMed
36.
Chang SW, Kerlikowske K, Napoles-Springer A, Posner SF, Sickles EA, Perez-Stable EJ. Racial differences in timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography. Cancer. 1996;78:1395–402.CrossRefPubMed
37.
38.
Mano MP, Distante V, Tomatis M, Baiocchi D, et al. Audit system on quality of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment (QT): results of quality indicators on screen-detected lesions in Italy in 2005 and preliminary results for 2006. Epidemiol Prev. 2008;32:77–84.
39.
Cheng SH, Wang CJ, Lin JL, Horng CF, Lu MC, et al. Adherence to quality indicators and survival in patients with breast cancer. Med Care. 2009;47:217–25.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Chen CY, Tzeng WS, Tsai CC, Mak CW, Chen CH, Chou MC. Adjusting mammography-audit recommendations in a lower-incidence Taiwanese population. J Am Coll Radol. 2008;5:978–85.
41.
Feig SA. Auditing and benchmarks in screening and diagnostic mammography. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:791–800.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Razavi AR, Gill H, Ahlfeldt H, Shahsavar N. Non-compliance with a postmastectomy radiotherapy guideline: Decision tree and cause analysis. BMC Med Informatics Decision Making. 2008;8:41–9.
43.
Olivotto IA, Bancej C, Goel V, Snider J, McAuley RG, Irvine B, et al. Waiting times form abnormal breast screen to diagnosis in 7 Canadian provinces. CMAJ. 2001;165:277–83.PubMed
44.
Kaufman CS, Delbecq R, Jacobson L. Excising the re-excision: stereotactic core biopsy decreases need for re-excision of breast cancer. World J Surg. 1998;22:1023–8.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Pocock B, Taback B, Klein L, Joseph KA, El-Tamer M. Preoperative needle biopsy as a potential quality measure in breast cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1108–11.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Clarke-Pearson EM, Jacobson AF, Boolbol SK, Leitman IM, Friedmann P, Lavarias V, et al. Quality assurance initiative at one institution for minimally invasive breast biopsy as the initial diagnostic technique. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:75–8.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Recht A, Allred DC, Harms SE, Holland R, et al. Image-detected breast cancer: state of the art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:586–97.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Friese CR, Neville BA, Edge SB, Hassett MJ, Earle CC. Breast biopsy patterns and outcomes in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. Cancer. 2009;115:716–24.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Holloway CM, Saskin R, Paszat L. Geographic variation and physician specialization in the use of percutaneous biopsy for breast cancer diagnosis. Can J Surg. 2008;51:453–63.PubMed
50.
Lannin DR, Ponn T, ANdrejeva L, Philpotts L. Should all breast cancers be diagnosed by needle biopsy? Am J Surg. 2006;192:450–4.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Kaufman CS. National quality validation programs for breast centers. Expert Rev Anticancer Therapy. 2007;7:1357–62.CrossRef
52.
53.
Kaufman CS. Validating quality breast care: three new validation programs for 2007. Am J Surg. 2007;194:515–7.CrossRefPubMed
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
Winchester DP. The national accreditation program for breast centers: a multidisciplinary approach to improve the quality of care for patients with diseases of the breast. Breast J. 2008;14:409–11.CrossRefPubMed
59.
60.
Metadata
Title
National Quality Measures for Breast Centers (NQMBC): A Robust Quality Tool
Breast Center Quality Measures
Authors
C. S. Kaufman, MD, FACS
L. Shockney, RN, BS, MAS, CBPN-C
B. Rabinowitz, PhD, MSW, RN
C. Coleman, RN, OCN
C. Beard
J. Landercasper, MD, FACS
J. B. Askew Jr., MD
D. Wiggins
Quality Initiative Committee
Publication date
01-02-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 2/2010
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0729-5

Other articles of this Issue 2/2010

Annals of Surgical Oncology 2/2010 Go to the issue

Endocrine Tumors

The Utility of Metaiodobenzylguanidine Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography (MIBG SPECT/CT) for the Diagnosis of Pheochromocytoma

Thoracic Oncology

Pneumonectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Radiation for Advanced-Stage Lung Cancer

Breast Oncology

Continued Exploration of Bevacizumab in Breast Cancer

Healthcare Policy and Outcomes

A Fire in Our Hearts: Passion and the Art of Surgery

Hepatobiliary Tumors

Minimesohepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastasis Invading the Middle Hepatic Vein at the Hepatocaval Confluence

Translational Research and Biomarkers

Beyond the False Negative Rate: Development of Quality Indicators for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Breast Cancer