Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.948 on August 8 2005

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Neuss, M. N. Articles by Simone, J. V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Neuss, M. N. Articles by Simone, J. V. Related Articles Related Editorial Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

A Process for Measuring the Quality of Cancer Care: The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative

From Oncology Hematology Care, Cincinnati, OH; Virginia Cancer Institute, Richmond; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Fairfax, VA; California Cancer Care, Greenbrae, CA; Oncology Associates, Cedar Rapids, IA; N Shore Cancer Center, Peabody, MA; Boston Baskin Cancer Group, Memphis, TN; Louisiana Oncology Associates, Lafayette, LA; University of Cincinnati College of Pharmacy; Simone Consulting Company, Dunwoody, GA

Address reprint requests to Michael N. Neuss, Oncology Hematology Care, 4725 E Galbraith, Suite 320, Cincinnati, OH 45236; e-mail: mneuss{at}ohcmail.com

PURPOSE: The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) is a practice-based system of quality self-assessment sponsored by the participants and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The process of quality evaluation, development of the pilot questionnaire, and preliminary results are reported.

METHODS: Physicians from seven oncology groups developed medical record abstraction measures based on practice guidelines and consensus-supported indicators of quality care. Each practice completed two rounds of records review and received practice and aggregate results. Mean frequencies of responses for each indicator were compared among practices.

RESULTS: Participants universally, if informally, find QOPI helpful, and results show statistically significant variation among practices for several indicators, including assessing pain in patients close to death, documentation of informed consent for chemotherapy, and concordance with granulocytic and erythroid growth factor administration guidelines. Measures with universally high concordance include the use of serotonin antagonist antiemetics according to the ASCO guideline; the presence of a pathology report in the record; the use of chemotherapy flow sheets; and adherence to standard chemotherapy recommendations for patients with certain stages of breast, colon, and rectal cancer. Concordance with quality indicators significantly changed between survey rounds for several measures.

CONCLUSION: Pilot results indicate that the QOPI process provides a rapid and objective measurement of practice quality that allows comparisons among practices and over time. It also provides a mechanism for measuring concordance with published guidelines. Most importantly, it provides a tool for practice self-examination that can promote excellence in cancer care.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

Related Editorial

• Practice Variation: The Achilles' Heel in Quality Cancer Care
  David M. Dilts
  JCO 2005 23: 5881-5882 [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Setoguchi, C. C. Earle, R. Glynn, M. Stedman, J. M. Polinski, C. P. Corcoran, and J. S. Haas Comparison of Prospective and Retrospective Indicators of the Quality of End-of-Life Cancer Care J. Clin. Oncol., December 10, 2008; 26(35): 5671 - 5678. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. K. McNiff, M. N. Neuss, J. O. Jacobson, P. D. Eisenberg, P. Kadlubek, and J. V. Simone Measuring Supportive Care in Medical Oncology Practice: Lessons Learned From the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative J. Clin. Oncol., August 10, 2008; 26(23): 3832 - 3837. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. E. Desch, K. K. McNiff, E. C. Schneider, D. Schrag, J. McClure, E. Lepisto, M. S. Donaldson, K. L. Kahn, J. C. Weeks, C. Y. Ko, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/National Comprehensive Cancer Network Quality Measures J. Clin. Oncol., July 20, 2008; 26(21): 3631 - 3637. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. O. Jacobson, M. N. Neuss, K. K. McNiff, P. Kadlubek, L. R. Thacker II, F. Song, P. D. Eisenberg, and J. V. Simone Improvement in Oncology Practice Performance Through Voluntary Participation in the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative J. Clin. Oncol., April 10, 2008; 26(11): 1893 - 1898. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. L. Towle, D. C. Fryefield, and J. V. Cox Good to Great: Exploring Ways to Improve Our Practice ASCO Educational Book, January 1, 2008; 2008(1): 486 - 491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. O. Jacobson The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI): An Important Tool for Measuring Quality and Improving Care ASCO Educational Book, January 1, 2008; 2008(1): 501 - 505. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Leonardi, M. L. McGory, and C. Y. Ko Quality of Care Issues in Colorectal Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., November 15, 2007; 13(22): 6897s - 6902s. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. R. Goldberg and R. S. Morrison Pain Management in Hospitalized Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review J. Clin. Oncol., May 1, 2007; 25(13): 1792 - 1801. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. B. Jacobsen, D. Shibata, E. M. Siegel, M. Druta, J.-H. Lee, J. Marshburn, L. Davenport, H. Cruse, R. Levine, A. Gondi, et al. Measuring Quality of Care in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: The Moffitt Quality Practice Initiative J. Oncol. Pract, March 1, 2007; 3(2): 60 - 65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Z. Ayanian and P. B. Jacobsen Enhancing Research on Cancer Survivors J. Clin. Oncol., November 10, 2006; 24(32): 5149 - 5153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Physicians Guided by First-Round Data From QOPI J. Oncol. Pract, September 1, 2006; 2(5): 251 - 251. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Herdman, W. McGuire, and J. Simone Influencing cancer policy. Health Aff., May 1, 2006; 25(3): 800 - 807. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Malin, E. C. Schneider, A. M. Epstein, J. Adams, E. J. Emanuel, and K. L. Kahn 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., February 1, 2006; 24(4): 626 - 634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. McNiff The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative: Assessing and Improving Care Within the Medical Oncology Practice J. Oncol. Pract, January 1, 2006; 2(1): 26 - 30. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. V. Cox J. Oncol. Pract, January 1, 2006; 2(1): 36 - 37. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. R. Somerfield, K. L. Hagerty, and C. E. Desch ASCO Clinical Practice Guidelines: Frequently Asked Questions J. Oncol. Pract, January 1, 2006; 2(1): 41 - 43. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. B. Bach Using Practice Guidelines to Assess Cancer Care Quality J. Clin. Oncol., December 20, 2005; 23(36): 9041 - 9043. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. C. Wolff and C. E. Desch Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Translating Evidence Into Practice (and back) J. Oncol. Pract, November 1, 2005; 1(4): 160 - 161. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. M. Dilts Practice Variation: The Achilles' Heel in Quality Cancer Care J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2005; 23(25): 5881 - 5882. [Full Text] [PDF]