Process indicators outshine outcome measures: assessing hospital quality of care in breast cancer treatment in China

Reporting the results of quality indicators can narrow the gap in the quality of care between hospitals. While most studies rely on outcome indicators, they may not accurately measure the quality of care. Process indicators are not only strongly associated with treatment outcomes, but are also more sensitive to whether patients are treated accurately, enabling timely intervention. Our study aims to investigate whether process indicators provide a more reasonable assessment of hospital quality of care compared to outcome indicators. Data were sourced from the Specific Disease Medical Service Quality Management and Control System in China. A total of 113,942 patients with breast cancer treated in 298 hospitals between January 2019 and April 2023 were included in this retrospective study. The rankability of 11 process indicators was calculated and used as a weight to create a new composite indicator. The composite indicators and outcome measures were compared using the O/E ratio categories. Finally, in order to determine the impact of different years on the results, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using bootstrap sampling. The rankability ( <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>ρ</mml:mi></mml:math> ) values of the eleven process indicators showed significant differences, with the highest <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>ρ</mml:mi></mml:math> value for preoperative cytological or histological examination before surgery (0.919). The <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>ρ</mml:mi></mml:math> value for the outcome indicator was 0.011. The rankability-weighting method yielded a comprehensive score ( <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>ρ</mml:mi></mml:math> = 0.883). The comparison with categorical results of the outcome indicator has different performance classifications for 113 hospitals (37.92%) for composite scores and 140 (46.98%) for preoperative cytological or histological examinationbefore surgery. Process indicators are more suitable than outcome indicators for assessing the quality of breast cancer care in hospitals. Healthcare providers can use process indicators to identify specific areas for improvement, thereby driving continuous quality improvement efforts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2024-08-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-70474-8
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.13

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Process indicators outshine outcome measures: assessing hospital quality of care in breast cancer treatment in China

Meina Liu, Jingkun Li, Mengyang Liu, Lei Yu et al.
4 citations
Scientific Reports
Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
1.13
article

Process indicators outshine outcome measures: assessing hospital quality of care in breast cancer treatment in China

Meina Liu, Jingkun Li, Mengyang Liu, Lei Yu, Chao Wang, Ruize Guo
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Reporting the results of quality indicators can narrow the gap in the quality of care between hospitals. While most studies rely on outcome indicators, they may not accurately measure the quality of care. Process indicators are not only strongly associated with treatment outcomes, but are also more sensitive to whether patients are treated accurately, enabling timely intervention. Our study aims to investigate whether process indicators provide a more reasonable assessment of hospital quality of care compared to outcome indicators. Data were sourced from the Specific Disease Medical Service Quality Management and Control System in China. A total of 113,942 patients with breast cancer treated in 298 hospitals between January 2019 and April 2023 were included in this retrospective study. The rankability of 11 process indicators was calculated and used as a weight to create a new composite indicator. The composite indicators and outcome measures were compared using the O/E ratio categories. Finally, in order to determine the impact of different years on the results, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using bootstrap sampling. The rankability ( <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>ρ</mml:mi></mml:math> ) values of the eleven process indicators showed significant differences, with the highest <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>ρ</mml:mi></mml:math> value for preoperative cytological or histological examination before surgery (0.919). The <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>ρ</mml:mi></mml:math> value for the outcome indicator was 0.011. The rankability-weighting method yielded a comprehensive score ( <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>ρ</mml:mi></mml:math> = 0.883). The comparison with categorical results of the outcome indicator has different performance classifications for 113 hospitals (37.92%) for composite scores and 140 (46.98%) for preoperative cytological or histological examinationbefore surgery. Process indicators are more suitable than outcome indicators for assessing the quality of breast cancer care in hospitals. Healthcare providers can use process indicators to identify specific areas for improvement, thereby driving continuous quality improvement efforts.

Scientific ReportsVol. 14(1)
Harbin Medical University (CN)
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
1.13
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.