Quality of Palliative Radiation Therapy Assessed Using Quality Indicators: A Multicenter Survey.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): Clinical practice is not always performed in accordance with guideline recommendations. Quality indicators (QIs) are valuable tools for evaluating the quality of healthcare systems. We sought to identify potential gaps between clinical practice and evidence using QIs previously developed using a modified Delphi method.

MATERIALS/METHODS: We used seven QIs (Table 1) to assess the quality of radiation therapy for bone (BoM) and brain metastases (BrM) at 29 centers; 13 (45%) were academic (12 university hospitals and 1 cancer center) and 16 (55%) were nonacademic hospitals. Compliance rate was calculated as the percentage of patients for whom recommended medical care was conducted. Random effects models were used to estimate pooled compliance rates. Mixed effects models with a Q test were used to compare compliance rates between academic and nonacademic centers.

RESULTS: The estimates of the compliance rates with 95% confidence intervals are presented in Table 1. For BoM-1, the compliance rate was higher in academic hospitals (100% [100-100%]) than in non-academic hospitals (96% [89-100%]) (P = 0.021). For BrM-3, the compliance rate was lower in academic hospitals (92% [81-99%]) than in nonacademic hospitals (100% [98-100%]) (P = 0.016).

CONCLUSION: A quality assessment based on these seven QIs is feasible. Overall, compliance rates were high; however, for BoM-3, the practice remains to be improved in some centers. Based on BoM-4 compliance rates, steroids are infrequently used concurrently with radiation therapy for malignant spinal cord compression. Extended fractionation for BoM was less frequently performed in academic than in nonacademic centers. The initiation of radiation therapy for brain metastases was more frequently delayed in academic than in nonacademic centers.