Evaluation of quality of care indicators in a Mastology Unit: comparative analysis of the last decade
- Obstetrics & Gynecology International Journal
-
Pizarro, G,<sup>1 </sup>Casado M,<sup>2</sup> Barchuk S,<sup>3</sup> Sanchez C,<sup>4</sup> Correa M,<sup>4</sup> Alvarez C,<sup>3</sup> Nasello M,<sup>3</sup> Yoshida M,<sup>3</sup> Rodriguez P,<sup>5</sup> Bustos B,<sup>6</sup> Dupont A,7 Pereyra M,<sup>7</sup> Gamarra S,<sup>8</sup> Della Vecchia D,<sup>9</sup> Zurita D<sup>10</sup>
PDF Full Text
Abstract
Introduction: A multidisciplinary approach to breast cancer (BC) is essential through the creation of Mastology Units (MU). To assess their effectiveness, there are indicators of quality of care developed by Scientific Societies, the most widely used being the one proposed by the European Society of Mastology (EUSOMA).
Objectives: To evaluate the quality of care in the UM of the Fernandez Hospital through the analysis of quality of care indicators (EUSOMA). To compare the results of indicators in two periods: pre- and post-pandemic. To identify which reached the minimum standards and ideal values.
Materials and methods: Retrospective descriptive study analyzing data from patients with CM treated between 2015-2019 and 2021-2024. Population characteristics and percentage of patients who met the indicators were recorded comparing both periods.
Results: We evaluated 462 patients with CM treated at our institution: 284 (2015-2019) and 178 (2021-2024). The minimum standard value was achieved in the earlier period in 72% of indicators (18/25) vs 74% (17/23) in the later period and the ideal in 25% vs. 48% (11/23), respectively. The minimum standards were reached in: clinical-imaging preoperative diagnosis, anatomopathology and multidisciplinary evaluation, surpassing the first period. The delay at the beginning of treatment remained below the standard, without significant changes. In surgical management, the standards were met, improving with respect to the previous period, with a higher proportion of breast reconstructions. In terms of radiant treatment, the standards were maintained without significant changes. As for systemic treatment, accessibility to hormonal therapy and adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment was achieved, showing improvement. In the follow-up, the minimum standard was reached without significant changes.
Conclusion: We highlight the relevance of defining indicators with values adjusted to the characteristics of our country in order to identify strategies to achieve a better quality of care.
Objectives: To evaluate the quality of care in the UM of the Fernandez Hospital through the analysis of quality of care indicators (EUSOMA). To compare the results of indicators in two periods: pre- and post-pandemic. To identify which reached the minimum standards and ideal values.
Materials and methods: Retrospective descriptive study analyzing data from patients with CM treated between 2015-2019 and 2021-2024. Population characteristics and percentage of patients who met the indicators were recorded comparing both periods.
Results: We evaluated 462 patients with CM treated at our institution: 284 (2015-2019) and 178 (2021-2024). The minimum standard value was achieved in the earlier period in 72% of indicators (18/25) vs 74% (17/23) in the later period and the ideal in 25% vs. 48% (11/23), respectively. The minimum standards were reached in: clinical-imaging preoperative diagnosis, anatomopathology and multidisciplinary evaluation, surpassing the first period. The delay at the beginning of treatment remained below the standard, without significant changes. In surgical management, the standards were met, improving with respect to the previous period, with a higher proportion of breast reconstructions. In terms of radiant treatment, the standards were maintained without significant changes. As for systemic treatment, accessibility to hormonal therapy and adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment was achieved, showing improvement. In the follow-up, the minimum standard was reached without significant changes.
Conclusion: We highlight the relevance of defining indicators with values adjusted to the characteristics of our country in order to identify strategies to achieve a better quality of care.
Keywords
mastology, breast cancer, magnetic resonance imaging, chemotherapy
