Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

National Quality Measures for Breast Centers (NQMBC): A Robust Quality Tool

Breast Center Quality Measures

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Measuring and improving quality of care is of primary interest to patients, clinicians, and payers. The National Consortium of Breast Centers (NCBC) has created a unique program to assess and compare the quality of interdisciplinary breast care provided by breast centers across the country.

Methods

In 2005 the NCBC Quality Initiative Committee formulated their initial series of 37 measurements of breast center quality, eventually called the National Quality Measures for Breast Centers (NQMBC). Measures were derived from published literature as well as expert opinion. An interactive website was created to enter measurement data from individual breast centers and to provide customized comparison reports. Breast centers submit information using data they collect over a single month on consecutive patients. Centers can compare their results with centers of similar size and demographic or compare themselves to all centers who supplied answers for individual measures. New data may be submitted twice yearly. Serially submitted data allow centers to compare themselves over time. NQMBC random audits confirm accuracy of submitted data. Early results on several initial measures are reported here.

Results

Over 200 centers are currently submitting data to the NQMBC via the Internet without charge. These measures provide insight regarding timeliness of care provided by radiologists, surgeons, and pathologists. Results are expressed as the mean average, as well as 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles for each metric. This sample of seven measures includes data from over 30,000 patients since 2005, representing a powerful database. In addition, comparison results are available every 6 months, recognizing that benchmarks may change over time.

Conclusions

A real-time web-based quality improvement program facilitates breast center input, providing immediate comparisons with other centers and results serially over time. Data may be used by centers to recognize high-quality care they provide or to identify areas for quality improvement. Initial results demonstrate the power and potential of web-based tools for data collection and analysis from hundreds of centers who care for thousands of patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Cancer Policy Board, Institute of Medicine and Commission on Life Sciences. Ensuring Quality Cancer Care, National Academy Press, 1999. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6467&page=R1. Accessed February 22, 2009.

  2. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Physician Quality Reporting Initiative. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI/01_Overview.asp#TopOfPage. Accessed February 22, 2009.

  3. The LeapFrog Group for Patient Safety. http://www.leapfroggroup.org/home.

  4. American College of Surgeons, National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. https://acsnsqip.org/login/default.aspx. Accessed February 22, 2009.

  5. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Physician Quality Reporting Initiative 2009 PQRI Measures List. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI/Downloads/2009PQRIMeasuresList.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2009.

  6. Society of Thoracic Surgeons, STS National Database. http://www.sts.org/sections/stsnationaldatabase/. Accessed February 22, 2009.

  7. Perkins C, Balma D, Garcia R; Members of the Consensus Group; Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Why current breast pathology practices must be evaluated. A Susan G. Komen for the Cure white paper: June 2006. Breast J. 2007;13:443–7.

  8. Malin J, Schneider EC, Epstein AM, Adams J, Emanuel EJ, Kahn KL. Results of the National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality: How Can We Improve the Quality of Cancer Care in the United States? J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:626–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Neumayer L, Hosokawa P, Itani K, El-Tamer M, Henderson WG, Khuri SF. Multivariable predictors of postoperative surgical site infection after general and vascular surgery: results from the patient safety in surgery study. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:1178–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Khuri SF, Henderson WG, Daley J, Jonasson O, Lones RS, Campbell DA Jr. et al. Successful implementation of the Department of Veterans Affairs” National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in the private sector: the Patient Safety in Surgery Study. Ann Surg. 2008;248:329–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Committee on Redesigning Health Insurance Performance Measures, Payment, and Performance Improvement Programs, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Executive Summary. Rewarding Provider Performance: Aligning Incentives in Medicare. The National Academies Press, Sept 2006. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11723.html. Accessed February 20, 2009.

  12. Hoy E. Measuring patient experiences of care. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2008;93:13–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sharp BA, Meikle SF, James MD, Steiner C, Remus D. NHQR/NHDR measures for women of reproductive age. Med Care. 2005;43 suppl:164–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Andersen MR, Bowen DJ, Morea J, Stein KD, Baker F. Involvement in decision-making and breast cancer survivor quality of life. Health Psychol. 2009;28:29–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Waljee JF, Hawley S, Alderman AK, Morrow M, Katz SJ. Patient satisfaction with treatment of breast cancer: does surgeon specialization matter? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3694–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. The Advisory Board Company. http://www.advisoryboardcompany.com/index.html. Accessed February 22, 2009.

  17. National Consortium of Breast Centers, Breast Center Types and Criteria. http://www.breastcare.org/. Accessed February 22, 2009.

  18. National Quality Measures for Breast Centers. Benefits of participation. http://www.nqmbc.org. Accessed February 22, 2009.

  19. Zarbo RJ, Gephardt GN, Howanitz PJ. Intralaboratory timeliness of surgical pathology reports. Results of two College of American Pathologists Q-Probes studies of biopsies and complex specimen. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:234–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Novis DA, Zarbo RJ, Saladino AJ. Interinstitutional comparison of surgical biopsy diagnosis turnaround time: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 5384 surgical biopsies in 157 small hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:951–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nakhleh RE, Jones B, Zarbo RJ. Mammographically directed breast biopsies: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of clinical physician expectations and of specimen handling and reporting characteristics in 434 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121:11–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Buyske J. For the protection of the public and the good of the specialty: Maintenance of certification. Arch Surg. 2009;144:101–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Williams SC, Schmaltz SP, Morton DJ, Koss RG, Loeb JM. Quality of care in U.S. hospitals as reflected by standardized measures, 2002–2004. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:255–264.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lindenauer PK, Remus D, Roman S, Rothberg MB, Benjamin EM, Ma A, et al. Public reporting and pay for performance in hospital quality improvement. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:486–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mainz J. Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15:523–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Donaldson M, ed. Measuring the quality of health care: a statement by the National Roundtable on Health Care Quality. Washington, DC: National Academy; 1999.

  27. Kaufman CS. Breast care is a team sport. Breast J. 2004;10:469–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tisnado DM, Rose-Ash DE, Malin JL, Adams JL, Ganz PA, Kahn KL. Financial incentives for quality in breast cancer care. Am J Manag Care. 2008;14:457–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rosenthal MB, Frank RG, Li Z, Epstein AM. Early experience with pay-for-performance: from concept to practice. JAMA. 2005;294:1788–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Personal communication, Lillie Shockney RN, BS, MAS, May, 2005.

  31. Kothari A, Fentiman IS. Diagnostic delays in breast cancer and impact on survival. Int J Clin Pract. 2003;57:200–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Burack RC, Simon MS, Stano M, George J, Coombs J. Follow-up among women with an abnormal mammogram in an HMO: is it complete, timely, and efficient? Am J Manag Care. 2000;6:1102–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Olivotto IA, Kan L, King S. Waiting for a diagnosis after an abnormal screening mammogram. SMPBC diagnostic process workgroup. Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia. Can J Public Health. 2000;91:113–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Perez G, Porta M, Borrell C, Casamitjana M, et al. Interval from diagnosis to treatment onset for six major cancers in Catalonia, Spain. Cancer Detect Prev. 2008;32:267–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Psooy BJ, Schreuer D, Borgaonkar J, Caines JS. Patient navigation: improving timeliness in the diagnosis of breast abnormalities. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2004;55:145–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chang SW, Kerlikowske K, Napoles-Springer A, Posner SF, Sickles EA, Perez-Stable EJ. Racial differences in timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography. Cancer. 1996;78:1395–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brucker SY, Schumacher C, Sohn C, et al. Benchmarking the quality of breast cancer care in a nationwide voluntary system: the first five-year results (2003-2007) from Germany as a proof of concept”. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:358. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/8/358. Accessed February 12, 2009.

  38. Mano MP, Distante V, Tomatis M, Baiocchi D, et al. Audit system on quality of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment (QT): results of quality indicators on screen-detected lesions in Italy in 2005 and preliminary results for 2006. Epidemiol Prev. 2008;32:77–84.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cheng SH, Wang CJ, Lin JL, Horng CF, Lu MC, et al. Adherence to quality indicators and survival in patients with breast cancer. Med Care. 2009;47:217–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chen CY, Tzeng WS, Tsai CC, Mak CW, Chen CH, Chou MC. Adjusting mammography-audit recommendations in a lower-incidence Taiwanese population. J Am Coll Radol. 2008;5:978–85.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Feig SA. Auditing and benchmarks in screening and diagnostic mammography. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:791–800.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Razavi AR, Gill H, Ahlfeldt H, Shahsavar N. Non-compliance with a postmastectomy radiotherapy guideline: Decision tree and cause analysis. BMC Med Informatics Decision Making. 2008;8:41–9.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Olivotto IA, Bancej C, Goel V, Snider J, McAuley RG, Irvine B, et al. Waiting times form abnormal breast screen to diagnosis in 7 Canadian provinces. CMAJ. 2001;165:277–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kaufman CS, Delbecq R, Jacobson L. Excising the re-excision: stereotactic core biopsy decreases need for re-excision of breast cancer. World J Surg. 1998;22:1023–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Pocock B, Taback B, Klein L, Joseph KA, El-Tamer M. Preoperative needle biopsy as a potential quality measure in breast cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1108–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Clarke-Pearson EM, Jacobson AF, Boolbol SK, Leitman IM, Friedmann P, Lavarias V, et al. Quality assurance initiative at one institution for minimally invasive breast biopsy as the initial diagnostic technique. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:75–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Recht A, Allred DC, Harms SE, Holland R, et al. Image-detected breast cancer: state of the art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:586–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Friese CR, Neville BA, Edge SB, Hassett MJ, Earle CC. Breast biopsy patterns and outcomes in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. Cancer. 2009;115:716–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Holloway CM, Saskin R, Paszat L. Geographic variation and physician specialization in the use of percutaneous biopsy for breast cancer diagnosis. Can J Surg. 2008;51:453–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Lannin DR, Ponn T, ANdrejeva L, Philpotts L. Should all breast cancers be diagnosed by needle biopsy? Am J Surg. 2006;192:450–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kaufman CS. National quality validation programs for breast centers. Expert Rev Anticancer Therapy. 2007;7:1357–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Yee KM. Exceeding ‘excellent’: how breast centers track quality. AuntMinnie.com February 17, 2009. http://www.auntminnie.com/index.asp?Sec=sup&Sub=imc&Pag=dis&ItemId=84615. Accessed February 18, 2009.

  53. Kaufman CS. Validating quality breast care: three new validation programs for 2007. Am J Surg. 2007;194:515–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. American Society of Breast Surgeons. Mastery Program. http://www.breastsurgeons.org/MasteryProgram.html. Accessed February 22, 2009.

  55. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Quality Oncology Practice Initiative, QOPI. http://qopi.asco.org/program.html. Accessed February 22, 2009.

  56. American Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology. Performance Assessment for the Advancement of Radiation Oncology. http://asro.astro.org/PAAROT/Default.aspx. Accessed February 22, 2009.

  57. American Board of Surgery. Maintenance of Certification. http://home.absurgery.org/default.jsp?exam-moc. Accessed February 22, 2009.

  58. Winchester DP. The national accreditation program for breast centers: a multidisciplinary approach to improve the quality of care for patients with diseases of the breast. Breast J. 2008;14:409–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. National Quality Measures for Breast Centers. Difference and Similarities: NAPBC and NQMBC. http://www.nqmbc.org/NAPBCandNQMBC.htm. Accessed February 22, 2009.

  60. American College of Surgeons. National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers, Program Standards/Components. http://www.accreditedbreastcenters.org/. Accessed February 22, 2009.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bellingham Breast Center, University of Washington, Bellingham, WA, USA

    C. S. Kaufman MD, FACS

  2. Johns Hopkins Avon Foundation Breast Center, Baltimore, MD, USA

    L. Shockney RN, BS, MAS, CBPN-C

  3. Meridian Health/Ocean Medical Center, Brick, NJ, USA

    B. Rabinowitz PhD, MSW, RN

  4. Coleman Breast Center Consultation Services, Tiburon, CA, USA

    C. Coleman RN, OCN

  5. Baptist Hospital for Women, Memphis, TN, USA

    C. Beard

  6. Gundersen Lutheran Surgery Clinic, LaCrosse, WI, USA

    J. Landercasper MD, FACS

  7. Houston NW Hospital Breast Center, Houston, TX, USA

    J. B. Askew Jr. MD

  8. National Consortium of Breast Centers, Inc., Warsaw, IN, USA

    D. Wiggins

Authors
  1. C. S. Kaufman MD, FACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Shockney RN, BS, MAS, CBPN-C
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Rabinowitz PhD, MSW, RN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Coleman RN, OCN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Beard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. Landercasper MD, FACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. B. Askew Jr. MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. D. Wiggins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

Quality Initiative Committee

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. S. Kaufman MD, FACS.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kaufman, C.S., Shockney, L., Rabinowitz, B. et al. National Quality Measures for Breast Centers (NQMBC): A Robust Quality Tool. Ann Surg Oncol 17, 377–385 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0729-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0729-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation