Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Puente, Javier
• Algaba Arrea, Ferran
• Buisán, Oscar
• Castellano, Daniel
• Duran, Ignacio
• Fernández Ávila, Juan José
• Gómez-Iturriaga, Alfonso
• Parada Blázquez, Mariano Jose
• Pérez Fentes, Daniel
• Sancho, Gemma
• Vallejo Casas, Juan Antonio
• Gratal, Paula
• Pardo, Maria Teresa
• Guillem, Vicente

Titel

Criteria and indicators to evaluate quality of care in genitourinary tumor boards

Ist Teil von

• Journal of clinical oncology, 2024-02, Vol.42 (4_suppl), p.388-388

Erscheinungsjahr

2024

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• 388 Background: Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards are an essential component of patient management, as they integrate input from various healthcare professionals to make comprehensive decisions about patient care. Management of patients with genitourinary (GU) tumors particularly relies on these multidisciplinary Tumor Boards. However, there are no guidelines on how these groups should operate. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify criteria useful to evaluate quality in GU Tumor Boards (GUTB); publication dates were January 2016 to December 2021. A scientific committee—comprising 12 GU specialists from several disciplines—reviewed the literature findings, proposed a list of criteria, and developed and selected indicators using the Delphi method in a first round. Thirty-nine experts from various disciplines (urology, radiation oncology, radiology, medical oncology, nuclear medicine, hospital pharmacy, and pathology) participated in the second round of the Delphi method to evaluate the indicators. In both rounds the appropriateness and utility of the criteria and/or indicators were scored using a 9-point Likert scale (1, extremely inappropriate or not useful; 9, extremely appropriate or useful). Consensus was defined as at least two-thirds of Delphi respondents selecting a score sub-category (1–3, 4–6, or 7–9) that encompassed the median score of the group. Results: Forty-eight articles were selected from the literature review and were used to develop a list of 67 initial criteria. The scientific committee narrowed these criteria down to 45 to evaluate the quality of GUTB, covering five dimensions: organization (11 criteria), personnel (5 criteria), protocol and registry (21 criteria), resources (6 criteria), and interaction with patients (2 criteria). Then, 33 indicators were developed and evaluated in the first round of Delphi, which led to a selection of 26 indicators. In the second round the group of experts reached consensus on the appropriateness of all 26 indicators and on the utility of 24 of them. Finally, indicators were compiled into a list, including how they should be measured, so that they can be easily used in clinical practice. Conclusions: Criteria and indicators were developed by this working group to evaluate the quality of GUTB, aiming to serve as a guide to improve quality of care and achieve better outcomes in patients with GU.