Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author: Vicente Guillem x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Rafael López, Antonio Antón, Enrique Aranda, Alfredo Carrato, Manuel Constenla, Juan Jesús Cruz, Eduardo Díaz-Rubio, Margarita Feyjóo, Jesús García-Foncillas, Pere Gascón, Vicente Guillem, Ilse Lugo, Álvaro Rogado, and Carlos Camps

Background: Patient quality care is a discipline that has acquired enormous relevance in today’s healthcare. The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) is a referral worldwide in terms of quality for oncology practices. The ECO Foundation is a foundation of experts representing the major Spanish hospitals involved in the treatment of cancer patients. ECO reached an agreement with ASCO to involve Spanish hospitals in the QOPI program. Methods: 6 rounds of data collection have taken place (Fall 2015 to Round 1 2018). Practices had to register online and submit data into the QOPI platform, and the ECO Foundation offered all centers the necessary support. 17 Spanish hospitals have participated in the 6 rounds, and 7 of them have repeated participation. Core and lung cancer modules were completed. Results: During the 6 rounds, 1,877 charts were submitted by the Spanish practices. In most of the rounds, the highest scores were: pathology report confirming malignancy; number of chemotherapy cycles documented; patient consent for chemotherapy; and 5 measures of the lung cancer module. The lowest scores were: chemotherapy treatment summary provided to patient within 3 months of chemotherapy end; chemotherapy treatment summary provided or communicated to practitioner(s) within 3 months of chemotherapy end; smoking/tobacco use cessation counselling recommended to smokers/tobacco users in past year; and tobacco cessation counselling administered or patient referred in past year. The percentage of participating practices that presented results higher than 70% was successively 64%, 50%, 75%, and 100% in the last 3 rounds. For the 7 hospitals that repeated participation, 3 reported an improvement of their global scores. Regarding QOPI Certification, 3 Spanish hospitals received this accreditation in September 2017 and one in June 2018. Conclusions: These preliminary results are a good starting point for the continued implementation of the QOPI program in Spain, thus providing a well-structured approach to analyze cancer care. The ECO Foundation will continue pursuing excellence and quality with further activities like the QOPI Certification program and Quality Training Program, these being performed for the first time in Spain in 2017 and 2018, respectively.

Full access

Carlos Camps, Joan Albanell, Antonio Antón, Enrique Aranda, Alfredo Carrato, Javier Cassinello, Daniel Castellano, Juan J. Cruz, Pilar Garrido, Vicente Guillem, Cristina Grávalos, Guillermo López, César Llorente, Antonio Lorenzo, Ana Lluch, Emilio Ignacio, and Eduardo Díaz-Rubio

Background: The quality of cancer care has become a priority for health care systems. The goal of this research was to develop a set of evidence-based quality indicators (QIs) for organization, palliative care, and colorectal, breast, and lung cancers for introducing a system of benchmarking in Spain. Methods: A comprehensive evidence-based literature search was performed to identify potential QIs. An expert panel (the health care quality promotion group) of 9 oncologists identified indicators and evaluated them. A Delphi process involving 58 physicians was used to rank QIs by clinical relevance (validity). The expert panel then evaluated the selected indicators in terms of the feasibility of measuring them in Spanish hospitals, their usefulness for comparisons, their degree of clinical relevance, and their sensitivity to the impact of health care improvements. Results: From the literature review, 99 potential QIs were identified. The Delphi process shortened the list to 72 QIs. A final set of 57 QIs was established by the health care quality promotion group: 12 related to organizational issues, 11 to colorectal cancer, 11 to breast cancer, 12 to lung cancer, and 11 to palliative care. This final set included structure (n=2), process (n=36), and outcome (n=19) indicators. Conclusions: A set of QIs has been developed using a validated Delphi method, meaning that we can be confident of their validity, feasibility, sensitivity, and acceptability. These QIs are to serve as the basis of a strategy for benchmarking across oncology services in Spanish hospitals and should enable us to assure and improve the quality of cancer care.

Full access

Juan Jesús Cruz, Isabel Ruiz Martin, Ana Fernandez, Rosana Martín, Enrique Aranda, Alfredo Carrato, Eduardo Díaz-Rubio, Vicente Guillem, Rafael López, Margarita Feyoo, Nerea Gonzalez-Garcia, Ana Nieto-Librero, Ramón Ferrer, Alicia Gonzalo, and Carlos Camps

Background: Patients with cancer and their caregivers express unmet needs beyond the clinical approach to cancer. The ECO Foundation (Quality and Excellence in Oncology) and the Spanish Association Against Cancer (AECC) have promoted a qualitative research study with the objective to identify and compare the perceptions of newly diagnosed and 2–3 years after diagnosis cancer patients, caregivers, oncologists, nurses, and social workers in relation to a set of nonclinical needs expressed by cancer patients and caregivers, and to obtain concrete and feasible proposals for improvement aimed at satisfying these needs. Methods: A multidisciplinary group of experts developed a questionnaire about information processes for cancer patients and caregivers, shared decision-making, satisfaction with healthcare circuits, the architecture of consultations, psychological support, support of associations, and the received support of hospital social workers. 14 Medical Oncology Services of Spanish hospitals have participated in this study collecting opinions from the study groups. 310 forms were collected, and data were statistically analyzed using Fisher's exact test. Results: Information processes: The opportunity to have a second opinion is positively valuated for 72.6% of patients and 70.2% of caregivers. However, although 62.5% of oncologists referred to offer this option to their patients, only 10.9% of patients reported having received it. Shared decision-making: For 58% of oncologists, patients are sufficiently trained to share decision-making, but only 24.6% of newly diagnosed patients consider being prepared. In addition, although 95.8% of oncologists report offering the participation of their patients in decision-making, only 45.8% of newly diagnosed patients and 64.4% of 2–3 years after diagnosis patients consider having received this opportunity. Psychological support: Psychological assistance was considered positive for 94.2% of the patients, 97.4% of the caregivers, 85.4% of the oncologists, and 97.1% of the nurses. However, only 21.3% of oncologists and 31.4% of nurses recognize offering such care to patients. Conclusions: Knowing the nonclinical needs, not only of patients and caregivers, but also from the healthcare professionals, is essential when designing health strategies that should align the perceptions of patients and healthcare professionals.