Abstract BACKGROUND:: Composite measures are useful for distilling quality data into summary scores; yet, there has been limited use of composite measures for cancer care. OBJECTIVE:: Compare multiple approaches for generating cancer care composite measures and evaluate how well composite measures summarize dimensions of cancer care and predict survival. STUDY DESIGN:: We computed hospital-level rates for 13 colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer process measures in 59 Veterans Affairs hospitals. We computed 4 empirical-factor (based on an exploratory factor analysis), 3 cancer-specific (colorectal, lung, prostate care), and 3 care modality-specific (diagnosis/evaluation, surgical, nonsurgical treatments) composite measures. We assessed correlations among all composite measures and estimated all-cause survival for colon, rectal, non-small cell lung, and small cell lung cancers as a function of composite scores, adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS:: Four factors emerged from the factor analysis: nonsurgical treatment, surgical treatment, colorectal early diagnosis, and prostate treatment. We observed strong correlations (r) among composite measures comprised of similar process measures (r=0.58-1.00, P
Medical Care
2015
Samuel CA, Zaslavsky AM, Landrum MB, Lorenz K, Keating NL
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25373407