Advertisement

Impact of Breast Center Accreditation on Compliance with Breast Quality Performance Measures at Commission on Cancer-Accredited Centers

  • Megan E. Miller
  • Richard J. Bleicher
  • Cary S. Kaufman
  • Scott H. Kurtzman
  • Cecilia Chang
  • Chi-Hsiung Wang
  • Karen A. Pollitt
  • James Connolly
  • David P. Winchester
  • Katharine A. YaoEmail author
Health Services Research and Global Oncology

Abstract

Purpose

This study was designed to determine whether accreditation by the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC) is associated with improved performance on six breast quality measures pertaining to adjuvant treatment, needle/core biopsy, and breast conservation therapy rates at Commission on Cancer (CoC) centers.

Methods

National Cancer Database 2015 data were retrospectively reviewed to compare patients treated at CoC centers with and without NAPBC accreditation for compliance on six breast cancer quality measures. Mixed effects modeling determined performance on the quality measures adjusting for patient, tumor, and facility factors.

Results

Of 1308 CoC facilities, 484 (37%) were NAPBC-accredited and 111,547 patients (48%) were treated at NAPBC centers. More than 80% of patients treated at both NAPBC and non-NAPBC centers received care in compliance with breast quality measures. NAPBC centers achieved significantly higher performance on four of the five quality measures than non-NAPBC centers at the patient level and on five of six measures at the facility level. For two measures, needle/core biopsy before surgical treatment of breast cancer and breast conservation therapy rate of 50%, NAPBC centers were twice as likely as non-NAPBC centers to perform at the level expected by the CoC (respectively odds ratio [OR] 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85–2.08, p < 0.0001; and OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.94–2.15, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

While NAPBC accreditation at CoC centers is associated with higher performance on breast quality measures, the majority of patients at all centers receive guideline-concordant care. Future studies will determine whether higher performance translates into improved oncologic and patient-reported outcomes.

Notes

Disclosures

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Winchester DP. The National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers: quality improvement through standard setting. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2011;20(3):581–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Link JS. History and overview of comprehensive interdisciplinary breast centers. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2000;9(2):147–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers. NAPBC standards manual. 2014 edn. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2014.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Winchester DP. The United States’ national accreditation program for breast centers: a model for excellence in breast disease evaluation and management. Chin Clin Oncol. 2016;5(3):31–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berger ER, Wang CE, Kaufman CS, et al. National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers demonstrates improved compliance with post-mastectomy radiation therapy quality measure. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224(3):236–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    American College of Surgeons. National Cancer Database. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer/ncdb/qualitymeasures. Accessed 10 Feb 2018.
  7. 7.
    Institute of Medicine. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chee TT, Ryan AM, Wasfy JH, Borden WB. Current state of value-based purchasing programs. Circulation. 2016;133(22):2197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grossman MD, Yelon JA, Szydiak L. Effect of American College of Surgeons trauma center designation on outcomes: measurable benefit at the extremes of age and injury. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(2):194–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Azagury DE, Morton JM. Patient safety and quality improvement initiatives in contemporary metabolic and bariatric surgical practice. Surg Clin North Am. 2016;96(4):733–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    American College of Surgeons. CoC quality of care measures. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer/ncdb/qualitymeasures. Accessed 5 June 2018.
  13. 13.
    National Cancer Database. Data Dictionary PUF 2015. http://ncdbpuf.facs.org/content/breast. Accessed 10 Feb 2018.
  14. 14.
    Leonard KL, Masatu MC. Changing health care provider performance through measurement. Soc Sci Med. 2017;181:54–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kesson EM, Allardice GM, George WD, Burns HJ, Morrison DS. Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13,722 women. Br Med J. 2012;344:e2718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cheng SH, Wang CJ, Lin JL, et al. Adherence to quality indicators and survival in patients with breast cancer. Med Care. 2009;47(2):217–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shulman LN, Palis BE, McCabe R, et al. Survival as a quality metric of cancer care: use of the National Cancer Data Base to assess hospital performance. J Oncol Pract. 2018;14(1):e59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    American College of Surgeons. Quality Programs. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs. Accessed 10 Feb 2018.
  19. 19.
    American College of Surgeons. Cancer Quality Improvement Program. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer/ncdb/qualitytools/cqip. Accessed 5 June 2018.

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Megan E. Miller
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard J. Bleicher
    • 1
    • 3
  • Cary S. Kaufman
    • 1
    • 4
  • Scott H. Kurtzman
    • 1
    • 5
  • Cecilia Chang
    • 1
    • 6
  • Chi-Hsiung Wang
    • 1
    • 6
  • Karen A. Pollitt
    • 1
    • 7
  • James Connolly
    • 1
    • 8
  • David P. Winchester
    • 1
    • 9
  • Katharine A. Yao
    • 1
    • 6
    • 10
    Email author
  1. 1.The Data Working Group, National Accreditation Program for Breast CentersAmerican College of SurgeonsChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Case Western Reserve UniversityUniversity HospitalsClevelandUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryFox Chase Cancer CenterPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryBellingham Regional Breast CenterBellinghamUSA
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Connecticut Health CenterWaterburyUSA
  6. 6.Division of Bioinformatics, Research InstituteNorthShore University HealthSystemEvanstonUSA
  7. 7.Division of Research and Optimal Patient CareAmerican College of SurgeonsChicagoUSA
  8. 8.Department of PathologyBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBostonUSA
  9. 9.Cancer ProgramsAmerican College of SurgeonsChicagoUSA
  10. 10.Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of SurgeryNorthShore University HealthSystemEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations