Catching and monitoring clinical innovation through performance indicators. The case of the breast-conserving surgery indicator.

Background: The evolution in the surgical and diagnostic procedures, the attention to women’s preferences, the case mix, and di erences in professional practices may lead to a variability in the quality of breast cancer clinical pathway. To catch and manage this variability it is important to use valid measures. The aim of this paper is to examine the concurrent validity of the breast-conserving surgery (BCS) indicator and to provide evidence to guide the quality improvement process. Methods: The BCS indicator was calculated using hospital discharge records (HDRs) and was validated against surgi- cal registry (SR) data in a random sample of 336 women undergoing breast cancer surgery in 2012 in two Tuscan teaching hospitals. The concurrent validity of BCS was examined by cross-tabulating patients using the ICD-9 CM codes for breast surgery obtained from the two data sources. Results: The analysis, carried out involving breast cancer professionals, highlighted that the large majority of inter- ventions coded as “mastectomies” in HDRs are in fact reconstructing procedures, including nipple-sparing, skin- sparing and skin-reducing mastectomies in SR. These results led us to re ne the old algorithm, that calculates the proportion of breast-conserving surgery over the total number of breast interventions, and reclassify breast cancer surgical procedures into three categories: conservative, reconstructive and traditional mastectomy. Based on this new classi cation algorithm, the percentages of (I) reconstructive interventions were 16% at Florence TH and 38.3% at Pisa TH; (II) breast-conserving interventions were respectively 72.8 and 52.1%; and (III) mastectomies 11.2 and 9.6%. After adjusting for age in a logistic regression model, the percentages of reconstructive interventions at Florence and Pisa were respectively 22 and 34% and those of breast-conserving interventions 63 and 53%. Conclusions: Our results indicate that breast cancer care indicators should be re ned by distinguishing reconstruc- tive procedures (nipple/skin-sparing surgery with implant or breast tissue expander insertion) from traditional mas- tectomy. The involvement of breast care professionals in the choice of indicators proved to be crucial to capture the up-to-date breast cancer surgical practice and inform the quality improvement process. Keywords: Performance indicators, Breast cancer, Breast conserving surgery, Healthcare quality, Professional involvement