Current Oncology (Jun 2023)

360 Health Analysis (H360)—A Comparison of Key Performance Indicators in Breast Cancer Management across Health Institution Settings in Portugal

  • Inês Brandão Rego,
  • Sara Coelho,
  • Patrícia Miguel Semedo,
  • Joana Cavaco-Silva,
  • Laetitia Teixeira,
  • Susana Sousa,
  • Joana Reis,
  • Rui Dinis,
  • Fernando Schmitt,
  • Noémia Afonso,
  • José Luís Fougo,
  • Francisco Pavão,
  • Ricardo Baptista Leite,
  • Luís Costa

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30070451
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 30, no. 7
pp. 6041 – 6065

Abstract

Read online

Background: The increased focus on quality indicators (QIs) and the use of clinical registries in real-world cancer studies have increased compliance with therapeutic standards and patient survival. The European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) established QIs to assess compliance with current standards in breast cancer care. Methods: This retrospective study is part of H360 Health Analysis and aims to describe compliance with EUSOMA QIs in breast cancer management in different hospital settings (public vs. private; general hospitals vs. oncology centers). A set of key performance indicators (KPIs) was selected based on EUSOMA and previously identified QIs. Secondary data were retrieved from patients’ clinical records. Compliance with target KPIs in different disease stages was compared with minimum and target EUSOMA standards. Results: A total of 259 patient records were assessed. In stages I, II, and III, 18 KPIs met target EUSOMA standards, 5 met minimum standards, and 8 failed to meet minimum standards. Compliance with KPIs varied according to the type of hospital (particularly regarding diagnosis) and disease stage. Although small differences were found in KPI compliance among institutions, several statistical differences were found among treatment KPIs according to disease stage, particularly in stage III. Conclusions: This study represents the first assessment of the quality of breast cancer care in different hospital settings in Portugal and shows that, although most QIs meet EUSOMA standards, there is room for improvement. Differences have been found across institutions, particularly between oncology centers and general hospitals, in diagnosis and compliance with KPIs among disease stages. Stage III showed the greatest variability in compliance with treatment KPIs, probably related to the lower specificity of the guidelines in this disease stage.

Keywords