From Multiple Quality Indicators of Breast Cancer Care Toward Hospital Variation of a Summary Measure

Objectives: To improve quality in breast cancer care, large numbers of quality indicators are collected per hospital, but benchmarking remains complex. We aimed to assess the validity of indicators, develop a textbook outcome summary measure, and compare case-mix adjusted hospital performance. Methods: From a nationwide population-based registry, all 79 690 nonmetastatic breast cancer patients surgically treated between 2011 and 2016 in 91 hospitals in The Netherlands were included. Twenty-one indicators were calculated and their construct validity tested by Spearman's rho. Between-hospital variation was expressed by interquartile range (IQR), and all valid indicators were included in the summary measure. Standardized scores (observed/expected based on case mix) were calculated as above (.100) or below (,100) expected. The textbook outcome was presented as a continuous and all-or-none score. Results: The size of between-hospital variation varied between indicators. Sixteen (76%) of 21 quality indicators showed construct validity, and 13 were included in the summary measure after excluding redundant indicators that showed collinearity with others owing to strong construct validity. The median all-or-none textbook outcome score was 49% (IQR 42%-54%) before and 49% (IQR 48%-51%) after case-mix adjustment. From the total of 91 hospitals, 3 hospitals were positive (3%) and 9 (10%) were negative outliers Conclusions: The textbook outcome summary measure showed discriminative ability when hospital performance was presented as an all-or-none score. Although indicator scores and outlier hospitals should always be interpreted cautiously, the summary measure presented here has the potential to improve Dutch breast cancer quality indicator efforts and could be implemented to further test its validity, feasibility, and usefulness.