ABSTRACT
Introducción: las Unidades de Mastología son organizaciones que tienen por objetivo abordar la patología mamaria de manera multidisciplinaria e integral. A nivel mundial se han implementado programas para evaluar la calidad de atención a través del cumplimiento de indicadores propuestos por Sociedades Científicas u organismos gubernamentales. Algunos de estos han sido propuestos y revisados por la Sociedad Europea de Mastología (EUSOMA). Objetivo: evaluar la calidad de atención de la Unidad de Mastología del Hospital Juan A. Fernández a través del análisis de una serie de indicadores propuestos por EUSOMA como estándares de calidad de atención en centros de patología mamaria. Material y método: estudio descriptivo retrospectivo analizando la base de datos de las pacientes con cáncer de mama estadios 0 a III operadas entre 2015 y 2019. Se analizaron 25 indicadores de procesos propuestos por EUSOMA en 2017. Se registraron las características de la población, y el porcentaje de pacientes en las cuales se cumple la condición de cada uno de los indicadores. Se registró si el indicador alcanza o supera el mínimo estándar, o si alcanza o supera el valor ideal. Resultados: se evaluaron 284 pacientes. Se observó el cumplimiento de la mayoría de los estándares propuestos (18 de 25), alcanzando o superando en el 25% de los indicadores evaluados el valor ideal. Se lograron alcanzar los estándares de calidad de atención relacionados con el diagnóstico clínico y preoperatorio, caracterización anatomopatológica completa en carcinoma invasor, evaluación multidisciplinaria, tratamiento quirúrgico primario en carcinoma invasor e in situ. Se alcanzaron los objetivos tendientes a evitar el sobretratamiento quirúrgico en carcinoma invasor y en cirugía conservadora en carcinoma in situ. En relación a los tratamientos adyuvantes, se alcanzaron los estándares relacionados con radioterapia post cirugía conservadora y post mastectomía, así como también el tratamiento con hormonoterapia y quimioterapia. El seguimiento de los pacientes se realizó en tiempo en tiempo y forma de acuerdo al indicador establecido. Existen 3 indicadores de calidad obligatorios en los que no se alcanzó el estándar mínimo: se observó la necesidad de mejorar la accesibilidad a los tratamientos antiHer2neu en neoadyuvancia, y de reducir los tiempos de espera al inicio del tratamiento. Conclusiones: se observó el cumplimiento de la mayoría de los estándares propuestos. Dado que existen indicadores obligatorios en los que no se alcanzó el estándar mínimo, los esfuerzos primarios deberán centrarse prioritaria e inicialmente en diseñar una planificación que permita alcanzar estos objetivos, así como también mantener en el tiempo los valores positivos ya alcanzados. Se pone de manifiesto la necesidad de implementar políticas a nivel sanitario nacional que permitan mejorar la accesibilidad a medicación oncológica. A su vez, destacamos la importancia de definir indicadores propios con valores ajustados a las características de nuestro país y mantener una evaluación periódica de la calidad de atención a través de los mismos.
Introduction: Breast Units are organizations that manage Breast Cancer in a comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach. Worlwide, programs have been developed in order to evaluate quality of care through the achievement of certain standards of care that have been proposed by scientific organizations, medical associations or government health departments. Some of these indicators have beeb proposed by the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialist (EUSOMA). Objective: to evaluate quality of care in the Breast Unit at Hospital Juan A Fernández (Buenos Aires, Argentina) through the analysis of a series of indicators described by EUSOMA as standard of care in breast centers. Material and method: we performed a descriptive, retrospective analysis of our database including patients with breast cancer stage 0 to III that wer treated between 2015 and 2019. We studied 25 quality of care process indicators proposed by EUSOMA in 2017. We registered population characteristics and the percentage of patients in which each indicator mínimum requirements were achieved. We also studied whether our results achieved or were beyond the ideal targets for each indicator. Results: a total of 284 patients were evaluated. The mínimum standard of care was achieved in most of the evaluated indicators (18 of 25) and in 25% of these, our results achieved or exce3ded the ideal requirements. The indicators in which the mínimum or ideal standard of care was accomplished were regarding clinical and preoperative diagnosis anatomopathological characterisation in invasive breast cancer, multidisciplinary approach, primary surgical management in invasive and in situ breast cancer, avoidanc of overtreatement in invasive breast cancer and breast conserving therapy in carcinoma in situ. Regarding adjuvant treatment, the standard of care was achieved in radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery and after mastectomy, endocrine therapy and chemotherapy. The follow up timing was according to the indicator. There were 3 mandatory indicators in which the mínimum standards were not achieved and were regarding accesibility to anti Her2neu agents in neoadjuvant setting, and timing form diagnosis to firts treatment. Conclusions: we observed that out Breast Unit achieved most of the quality of care indicators described by EUSOMA. However, there 3 mandatory indicators where the results were below the mínimum. This is why future efforts should be focused on designing and planning new measures that will allow these objectives to be accomplished, as well as maintaining what has already been achived. Our results also show the imperious need to implement national public health pólices that would grant a better accesiblility to oncologic medications. We also analysed the importance of defining our own local quality of care indicators in relation to our health policies and current situation, as well as the importance of a continuous evaluation of quality of care through these indicators.
Subject(s)
Female , Breast Neoplasms , Quality of Health Care , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Medical AuditABSTRACT
This study is aimed to propose a continual improvement strategy based on quality by design (QbD). An ultra high performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) method was developed to accomplish the method transformation from HPLC to UPLC of Panax notogineng saponins (PNS) and achieve the continual improvement of PNS based on QbD, for example. Plackett-Burman screening design and Box-Behnken optimization design were employed to further understand the relationship between the critical method parameters (CMPs) and critical method attributes (CMAs). And then the Bayesian design space was built. The separation degree of the critical peaks (ginsenoside Rg₁ and ginsenoside Re) was over 2.0 and the analysis time was less than 17 min by a method chosen from the design space with 20% of the initial concentration of the acetonitrile, 10 min of the isocratic time and 6%•min⁻¹ of the gradient slope. At last, the optimum method was validated by accuracy profile. Based on the same analytical target profile (ATP), the comparison of HPLC and UPLC including chromatograph method, CMA identification, CMP-CMA model and system suitability test (SST) indicated that the UPLC method could shorten the analysis time, improve the critical separation and satisfy the requirement of the SST. In all, HPLC method could be replaced by UPLC for the quantity analysis of PNS.
ABSTRACT
Background: Quality in the health care institutions is multifaceted & multidimensional with its core element as the customer’s satisfaction. Improvement in the health care services is a long drawn relentless process which can be achieved by implementing a carefully planned Quality Management System. Laboratory services B.J. Medical College & Civil Hospital Ahmedabad, has set its Quality indicators and is monitoring it as a part of continual improvement. One of the Quality indicators is Sample rejection. The laboratory aims to reduce the sample rejections by complying with the standards & recommended guidelines. Methods: This is to monitor & analyze the Sample Rejections as a Quality Indicator for Continual improvement of the Microbiology Department. Primary data collection done before training & secondary data collection done after the training of nursing staff & Resident Doctors. Results: The sample rejection rate of the Microbiology Laboratory in the month of July 2010 was 0.31%. After the training of the nursing staff as well as resident doctors regarding proper collection & transport of samples based on scientific principles, a decreasing trend in the sample rejection rate is observed. i. e. from .31% to 0.11 % in the 13 months duration of study.Conclusion: The implementation of a systematic error-tracking system i.e. monitoring the sample rejections, analysing its trend, taking preventive & corrective actions to reduce the sample rejection rate in daily practice definitely improves the quality of the laboratory results and is a quality indicator for continual improvement of the laboratory.
ABSTRACT
To provide an effective approach to select, develop, interpret and apply well-designed quality indicators. Then to promote the continual improvement of laboratory quality and to assure patient safety. We focused on the quality cycle of selecting, development, implementation and processing for quality indicators. And some examples for essential activities in the development and use of quality indicators were shown. Through the presentation of process and examples, we put forward an organized approach that provides the laboratory with a plan to structure its development of quality indicators to gather useful information. Quality indicators are important. However, they should be integrated with internal review plan, External Quality Assessment (EQA) and the process of activities in plan. Only then can we really promote the continual improvement of quality.