National Academies Press: OpenBook

Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia (2005)

Chapter: APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators

« Previous: 8 Looking Ahead to the Implementation of Quality-of-Cancer-Care Measures
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×

APPENDIX A
Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators

The quality measures recommended in this report draw from a variety of clinical practice setting organizations, federal health agencies, provider groups, and others. This appendix describes the following organizations that were key to the IOM committee’s work (including how each organization grades levels of evidence and categorizes the strength of its clinical recommendations):

  • American Society of Clinical Oncology;

  • College of American Pathologists;

  • Commission on Cancer;

  • Healthy People 2010;

  • Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement;

  • National Comprehensive Cancer Network; and

  • U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×

American Society of Clinical Oncology

Sponsor

American Society of Clinical Oncology

Description

Professional organization of clinical oncologists, oncology nurses, and other health care professionals with a focus in oncology. Publishes guidelines and technology assessments produced by panels of experts based on the research literature. Topics are selected for clinical or economic importance, variations in patterns of or access to care, availability of data, and ethical considerations.

Primary Focus

Breast cancer, colorectal cancer, hematology, lung cancer, myeloma, and crosscutting topics related to cancer treatment, such as the use of antiemetics.

Levels of Evidence

Level I: Evidence obtained from meta-analysis of multiple, well-designed, controlled studies. Randomized trials with low false-positive and low false-negative errors (high power).

Level II: Evidence obtained from at least one well-designed experimental study. Randomized trials with high false-positive and/or negative errors (low power).

Level III: Evidence obtained from well-designed, quasi-experimental studies such as nonrandomized, controlled, single group, pre-post, cohort, and time or matched case-control series.

Level IV: Evidence from well-designed, nonexperimental studies such as comparative and correlational descriptive and case studies.

Level V: Evidence from case reports.

Strength of Recommendation

Grade A: There is evidence of type I or consistent findings from multiple studies of type II, III, or IV.

Grade B: There is evidence of type II, III, or IV, and findings are generally consistent.

Grade C: There is evidence of type II, III, or IV, but findings are inconsistent.

Grade D: There is little or no systematic empirical evidence.

Years

Since 1993

Schedule of Updates

New literature reviewed annually; guidelines updated as necessary

Website

www.asco.org

Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×

College of American Pathologists

Sponsor

College of American Pathologists (CAP)

Description

Principal organization of board-certified pathologists concerned with the practice of pathology and laboratory medicine.

Primary Focus

CAP produces standardized templates, referred to as protocols or checklists, for reporting findings on cancer specimens for each organ site and type of surgical specimen.

Levels of Evidence

NA

Strength of Recommendation

NA

Years

Since 1998

Schedule of Updates

Updated as needed

Website

www.cap.org

NA = not applicable.

Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×

Commission on Cancer

Sponsor

American College of Surgeons

Description

The Commission on Cancer (CoC) is a multi-disciplinary consortium that establishes quality standards for cancer care programs and accredits programs according to those standards. Although most CoC-accredited programs are hospital-based, freestanding treatment facilities and health care networks can also apply for CoC accreditation.

Primary Focus

CoC standards cover the full range of cancer center activities including clinical and pathology data and reporting, tumor registries, clinical management, research, community outreach, professional education, and quality improvement. CoC-certified pathology laboratories must comply with the College of American Pathologists’ reporting requirements for cancer-directed surgical specimens.

Levels of Evidence

NA

Strength of Recommendation

NA

Years

Since 1975

Schedule of Updates

Updated as needed

Website

http://www.facs.org/cancer/coc/coc.html

NA = not applicable.

Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×

Healthy People 2010

Sponsor

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)

Description

Healthy People 2010 is a statement of national health objectives designed to identify the most significant preventable threats to health and to establish national goals to reduce these threats. It includes specific, measurable objectives across 28 focus areas with target goals and national baseline.

Primary Focus

The cancer-related objectives of Healthy People 2010 relate to:

  • Mortality (overall, lung, breast, cervical, colorectal, oropharyngeal, prostate, and melanoma)

  • Sun exposure and skin cancer

  • Provider counseling about cancer prevention

  • Pap tests

  • Colorectal cancer screening

  • Mammograms

  • Statewide cancer registries

  • Survival

  • Fruit and vegetable intake

  • Fat intake

  • Oral and pharyngeal cancers

  • Tobacco use including smoking cessation and insurance coverage of tobacco cessation treatment

Levels of Evidence

NA

Strength of Recommendation

NA

Years

Healthy People 2000, Healthy People 2010

Schedule of Updates

New objectives developed every 10 years. Each focus area is reviewed at least twice during the decade.

Website

www.healthypeople.gov

NA = not applicable.

Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×

Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement

Sponsors

Six Minnesota health plans; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, Health Partners, Medica, PreferredOne, UCare Minnesota, and Metropolitan Health Plan

Description

A nonprofit collaborative that provides health care quality improvement services to its 54 member groups, including more than 7,400 physicians.

Primary Focus

More than 55 guidelines for the prevention or treatment of specific health conditions. Cancer-related guidelines address colorectal cancer screening, tobacco use prevention and cessation, diagnosis of breast disease, and breast cancer treatment.

Levels of Evidence

Primary Reports of New Data Collection

Class A: Randomized, controlled trial

Class B: Cohort study

Class C: Nonrandomized trial with concurrent or historical controls; Case-control study; Study of sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic tests; Population-based descriptive study

Class D: Cross-sectional study; Case series; Case report

Reports that Synthesize or Reflect upon Collections of Primary Reports

Class M: Meta-analysis; Systematic review; Decision analysis; Cost-effectiveness analysis

Class R: Consensus statement; Consensus report; Narrative review

Class X: Medical opinion

Strength of Recommendation

Grade I: The evidence consists of results from studies of strong design for answering the question addressed. The results are both clinically important and consistent with minor exceptions at most. The results are free of any significant doubts about generalizability, bias, and flaws in research design. Studies with negative results have sufficiently large samples to have adequate statistical power.

Grade II: The evidence consists of results from studies of strong design for answering the question addressed, but there is some uncertainty attached to the conclusions because of inconsistencies among the results from the studies or because of minor doubts about generalizability, bias, research design flaws, or adequacy of sample size. Alternatively, the evidence consists solely of results from weaker designs for the question addressed, but the results have been confirmed in separate studies and are consistent with minor exceptions at most.

Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×

 

Grade III: The evidence consists of results from studies of strong design for answering the question addressed, but there is substantial uncertainty attached to the conclusion because of inconsistencies among the results from different studies or because of serious doubts about generalizability, bias, research design flaws, or adequacy of sample size. Alternatively, the evidence consists solely of results from a limited number of studies of weak design for answering the question addressed.

Years

Since 1992

Schedule of Updates

Reviewed every 12-18 months and updated as necessary

Website

www.icsi.org

Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Sponsor

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)

Description

An alliance of 19 leading cancer centers. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology are the most widely used guidelines in oncology practice.

Primary Focus

NCCN guidelines cover treatment of more than 95 percent of all cancers and also address cancer detection; risk assessment and reduction; and supportive care for nausea and vomiting, distress management, cancer-related fatigue, and cancer pain.

Levels of Evidence

NA

Strength of Recommendation

The strength of the recommendations provided in NCCN guidelines is indicated by the Categories of Consensus, which are based on both the strength of the evidence for the recommendation and the degree of committee consensus.

Category 1: There is uniform NCCN consensus, based on high-level evidence, that the recommendation is appropriate.

Category 2A: There is uniform NCCN consensus, based on lower-level evidence including clinical experience, that the recommendation is appropriate.

Category 2B: There is nonuniform NCCN consensus (but no major disagreement), based on lower-level evidence including clinical experience, that the recommendation is appropriate.

Category 3: There is major NCCN disagreement that the recommendation is appropriate.

Years

Since 1995

Schedule of Updates

Updated at least annually

Website

www.nccn.org

NA = not applicable.

Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)

Sponsor

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Description

An independent panel of private-sector experts appointed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Primary Focus

The appropriate use of preventive services in primary care settings, including cancer screening, counseling, chemoprevention, and immunizations. Cancer-related recommendations concern screening for 12 cancers, including breast, lung, prostate, and colorectal and counseling for gynecologic cancers, skin cancer; tobacco use, and vitamin supplementation for cancer prevention.

Levels of Evidence

Good: Evidence includes consistent results from well-designed, well-conducted studies in representative populations that directly assess effects on health outcomes.

Fair: Evidence is sufficient to determine effects on health outcomes, but the strength of the evidence is limited by the number, quality, or consistency of the individual studies, generalizability to routine practice, or indirect nature of the evidence on health outcomes.

Poor: Evidence is insufficient to assess the effects on health outcomes because of limited number or power of studies, important flaws in their design or conduct, gaps in the chain of evidence, or lack of information on important health outcomes.

Strength of Recommendation

A: The USPSTF strongly recommends that clinicians provide [the service] to eligible patients. The USPSTF found good evidence that [the service] improves important health outcomes and concludes that benefits substantially outweigh harms.

B: The USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide [this service] to eligible patients. The USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] improves important health outcomes and concludes that benefits outweigh harms.

C: The USPSTF makes no recommendation for or against routine provision of [the service]. The USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] can improve health outcomes but concludes that the balance of benefits and harms is too close to justify a general recommendation.

D: The USPSTF recommends against routinely providing [the service] to asymptomatic patients. The USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] is ineffective or that harms outweigh benefits.

Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×

 

I: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely providing [the service]. Evidence that the [service] is effective is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.

Years

Since 1984

Schedule of Updates

Updated as needed

Website

www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfix.htm

Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×
Page 247
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×
Page 248
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×
Page 249
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×
Page 250
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×
Page 251
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×
Page 252
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×
Page 253
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×
Page 254
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×
Page 255
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Sources of Cancer-Related Clinical Guidelines and Quality Indicators." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11244.
×
Page 256
Next: APPENDIX B Sources of Data: Surveys and Datasets »
Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care: An Approach to Measurement in Georgia Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $67.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Shortly after 1998, leading members of Georgia's government, medical community, and public-spirited citizenry began considering ways in which some of Georgia's almost $5 billion, 25-year settlement from the tobacco industry's Master Settlement Agreement with the 50 states could be used to benefit Georgia residents. Given tobacco's role in causing cancer, they decided to create an entity and program with the mission of making Georgia a national leader in cancer prevention, treatment, and research. This new entity--called the Georgia Cancer Coalition, Inc. (GCC)-- and the state of Georgia subsequently began implementing a far-reaching state cancer initiative that includes five strategic goals: (1) preventing cancer and detecting existing cancers earlier; (2) improving access to quality care for all state residents with cancer; (3) saving more lives in the future; (4) training future cancer researchers and caregivers; and (5) turning the eradication of cancer into economic growth for Georgia.

Assessing the Quality of Cancer Care identifies a set of measures that could be used to gauge Georgia's progress in improving the quality of its cancer services and in reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!