Analysis of internet usage among cancer patients in a county hospital setting: a quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is one of the most common diseases that patients research on the Internet. The Commission on Cancer (CoC) recommended that Parkland Memorial Hospital (PMH) improve the oncology services website. PMH is Dallas County's public health care facility, serving a largely uninsured, minority population. Most research regarding patient Internet use has been conducted in insured, Caucasian populations, raising concerns that the needs of PMH patients may not be extrapolated from available data. The PMH Cancer Committee, therefore, adopted a quality improvement initiative to understand patients' Internet usage. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to obtain and analyze data regarding patients' Internet usage in order to make targeted improvements to the oncology services section of the institutional website. METHODS: A task force developed an 11-question survey to ascertain what proportion of our patients have Internet access and use the Internet to obtain medical information as well as determine the specific information sought. Between April 2011 and August 2011, 300 surveys were administered to newly diagnosed cancer patients. Multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 300 surveys, 291 were included. Minorities, primarily African-American and Hispanic, represented 78.0% (227/291) of patients. Only 37.1% (108/291) of patients had Internet access, most (256/291, 87.9%) having access at home. Younger patients more commonly had Internet access, with a mean age of 47 versus 58 years for those without (P<.001). Education beyond high school was associated with Internet access (P<.001). The most common reason for Internet research was to develop questions for discussion with one's physician. Patients most frequently sought information regarding cancer treatment options, outcomes, and side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Less than one-half of PMH oncology patients have Internet access. This is influenced by age, educational level, and ethnicity. Those with access use it to obtain information related to their cancer diagnosis. The most effective way of addressing our patients' needs using the institutional website is to provide links to reputable disease-specific sites.

Compliance with the commission on cancer quality of breast cancer care measures: self-evaluation advised.

To provide evaluations of cancer care quality, the Commission on Cancer and the National Quality Forum (NQF) established three breast cancer treatment quality measures. Programs that submit data to the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) can receive feedback on their compliance with these quality measures, and perform comparisons with other member institutions. Data received by a county hospital from the NCDB revealed poor compliance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of submitted data, identify contributing factors and initiate processes to improve. Reported 2004 NCDB quality measure compliance was 26% for radiation, 61.4% for chemotherapy, and 21.3% for hormonal therapy. Retrospective treatment review was performed. Data collected included: patient demographics, pathology, final surgical intervention, adjuvant treatment, and quality measure compliance. Sources included two electronic records, an electronic results depository, two paper charts, a pharmacy data base, and a "shadow chart." Applicability of and compliance with these quality measures was noted. Of 540 records reviewed, 132 met final study criteria. Actual compliance differed significantly from NCDB rates and were found to be 97% for radiation, 98% for chemotherapy, and 88% for hormonal therapy. Process analysis revealed the need for tumor registry staff to evaluate all sources of data. A significant problem was neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and the requirement to submit NCDB data within 6 months of initial diagnosis. Processes and education initiated for tumor registry staff, medical records personnel, physicians, and other care providers resulted in significantly improved 2007 compliance of data submitted to the NCDB. Prior to public reporting, institutions should perform NQF quality measure compliance assessments, confirm accuracy, and initiate educational processes/imperatives.

Axillary staging by percutaneous biopsy: sensitivity of fine-needle aspiration versus core needle biopsy.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether percutaneous core needle biopsy (CNB) of suspicious axillary lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer offers improved diagnostic accuracy compared with fine-needle aspiration (FNA). METHODS: Records of 400 patients were reviewed to identify patients undergoing ultrasound-guided biopsy followed by surgical axillary evaluation (sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary lymph node dissection). Patients underwent diagnosis and treatment at a single high-volume county hospital. Data collected included demographics, treatment, biopsy, and surgical pathology. Percutaneous biopsy results were compared with results of sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary lymph node dissection. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients met final study criteria. Twenty-two patients underwent FNA, and 25 underwent CNB. Sensitivity of FNA was 75% vs. 82% for CNB. Specificity for both was 100%. Additionally, a cost comparison of CNB versus FNA revealed CNB to be $404; FNA cost was $237. CONCLUSIONS: The current data do not support the routine use of CNB over FNA for preoperative axillary staging in breast cancer patients with clinically negative axillas. Additionally, the substantial increase in cost without a marked improvement in sensitivity may favor the performance of FNA.