You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Editorial
Mind the gap: how vulnerable patients fall through the cracks of cancer quality metrics
Free
  1. Christopher Manz1,2,3,
  2. Katharine Rendle2,3,4,
  3. Justin Bekelman2,3,5
  1. 1 Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2 Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  3. 3 Leonard Davis Institute for Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  4. 4 Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  5. 5 Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Christopher Manz, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Christopher.Manz{at}pennmedicine.upenn.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010062

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    In USA, cancer outcomes have steadily improved but considerable disparities in outcomes persist.1 There is continued evidence that vulnerable patients (ie, those who are socially or economically disadvantaged) are less likely to receive high-quality care and subsequently have poorer outcomes.2 Since the release of the Institute of Medicine’s report Ensuring Quality Cancer Care in 1999, increased attention has been paid to the importance of measuring cancer care quality, understanding its effects on outcomes and identifying effective strategies for ensuring that all patients have access to high-quality cancer care.3 Studies have demonstrated that patient survival varies by hospital type (eg, community vs academic cancer centre), even after risk adjustment for tumour characteristics and comorbidities, and that patients treated at hospitals that perform worse on some cancer quality metrics have inferior survival.4–10 Collectively, these findings suggest that variations in cancer care quality translate into decreased survival for thousands of patients every year, and vulnerable patients are at particular risk of poorer cancer outcomes.

    The intended goals of quality metrics are to allow hospitals to identify and improve on substandard care, thereby elevating individual and population level cancer care quality, while also enabling patients and payers to choose high-performing hospitals through public reporting. There has been close consideration of how best to measure quality that addresses social drivers of poor cancer outcomes, without punishing hospitals that treat large numbers of vulnerable patients. While quality metrics that focus on the outcomes that matter most to cancer patients—living longer (overall survival) and living better (quality of life)—would be preferred, this is very difficult in practice as these outcomes may indirectly hold hospitals accountable for extrinsic socioeconomic factors beyond their direct control.11 12

    The limitations attached to using survival and quality of life outcomes as quality metrics mean that the substantial …

    View Full Text

    Linked Articles