Indicators based on registers and administrative data for breast cancer: routine evaluation of oncologic care pathway can be implemented

Rationale, aims and objectives Assuring the best standards of care – in a sustainable way – in chronic diseases as breast cancer is nowadays an important challenge for any health system. The aim of this study was to present the methodology used to define a set of quality indicators, computable from...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 2016-02, Vol.22 (1), p.62-70
Hauptverfasser: Andreano, Anita, Anghinoni, Emanuela, Autelitano, Mariangela, Bellini, Aldo, Bersani, Maurizio, Bizzoco, Sabrina, Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca, Decarli, Adriano, Lucchi, Silvia, Mannino, Salvatore, Panciroli, Emerico, Rebora, Paola, Rognoni, Magda, Sampietro, Giuseppe, Villa, Marco, Zocchetti, Carlo, Zucchi, Alberto, Valsecchi, Maria Grazia, Russo, Antonio Giampiero
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 70
container_issue 1
container_start_page 62
container_title Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
container_volume 22
creator Andreano, Anita
Anghinoni, Emanuela
Autelitano, Mariangela
Bellini, Aldo
Bersani, Maurizio
Bizzoco, Sabrina
Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca
Decarli, Adriano
Lucchi, Silvia
Mannino, Salvatore
Panciroli, Emerico
Rebora, Paola
Rognoni, Magda
Sampietro, Giuseppe
Villa, Marco
Zocchetti, Carlo
Zucchi, Alberto
Valsecchi, Maria Grazia
Russo, Antonio Giampiero
description Rationale, aims and objectives Assuring the best standards of care – in a sustainable way – in chronic diseases as breast cancer is nowadays an important challenge for any health system. The aim of this study was to present the methodology used to define a set of quality indicators, computable from administrative data for the pathway of care of breast cancer, and its application at a population level. Method The cohort of 2007–2009 incident cases of breast cancer was identified through a network of six cancer registers in Northern Italy. Cases of sarcoma and lymphoma, patients with multiple primary cancers and those metastatic at diagnosis were excluded; 9614 women were retained for the analysis. For each indicator, the sub‐cohort of women eligible for the diagnostic/therapeutic procedures was identified and calculations were performed through record linkage between the cohort and sources of health information. Data on potential available confounders or prognostic factors were also collected. Results For a few indicators, such as cyto‐histological assessment before surgery (62%) and intensive follow‐up (79%), deviation from recommendations was evident. Younger patients (≤50 years) more frequently needed a short term re‐intervention, while older patients less frequently underwent reconstructive surgery and received palliative care. Several indicators had a great variability across hospitals. In some cases, this heterogeneity appeared to be related to the hospital size, with high‐volume hospitals being more compliant to guidelines. Conclusion It is possible to evaluate the quality of cancer care delivered in clinical practice in recent years, in order to implement interventions aimed to improve adherence to international standards of care.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/jep.12436
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826624972</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2308358381</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3916-bb97dca29211c01afb6eb2b54a02cebb488b7f9d9821f07a3f13f5bf6c1d6fec3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1DAURiMEoqWw4AWQJTawSOufxEnYodJOiypgUVR21rV9XTwkcbCTlnkDHhsP03aBhDfXts53dKWvKF4yesjyOVrjdMh4JeSjYp8JWZe8qcXj7b2WJeNdtVc8S2lNKRO0bp4We1zyjrKG7xe_z0frDcwhJqIhoSVhJBGvfZoxf8FoCdjBj_kdYfY3SCzMQFyIREeENBMDo8H4jsSwzH5EgjfQLxnNnuCyzYQ-XHuTuYhkgvn7LWy2IaKR-GHqccBxRvu8eOKgT_jibh4UX09PLo_PyovPq_Pj9xelER2TpdZdYw3wjjNmKAOnJWqu6wooN6h11ba6cZ3tWs4cbUA4JlytnTTMSodGHBRvdt4php8LplkNPhnsexgxLEmxlkvJq67hGX39D7oOSxzzdooL2oq6FS3L1NsdZWJIKaJTU_QDxI1iVG3rUbke9beezL66My56QPtA3veRgaMdcOt73PzfpD6efLlXlrvEtrFfDwmIP5RsRFOrq08rJT6Is8vTbyt1Jf4AHeerOQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2308358381</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Indicators based on registers and administrative data for breast cancer: routine evaluation of oncologic care pathway can be implemented</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Andreano, Anita ; Anghinoni, Emanuela ; Autelitano, Mariangela ; Bellini, Aldo ; Bersani, Maurizio ; Bizzoco, Sabrina ; Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca ; Decarli, Adriano ; Lucchi, Silvia ; Mannino, Salvatore ; Panciroli, Emerico ; Rebora, Paola ; Rognoni, Magda ; Sampietro, Giuseppe ; Villa, Marco ; Zocchetti, Carlo ; Zucchi, Alberto ; Valsecchi, Maria Grazia ; Russo, Antonio Giampiero</creator><creatorcontrib>Andreano, Anita ; Anghinoni, Emanuela ; Autelitano, Mariangela ; Bellini, Aldo ; Bersani, Maurizio ; Bizzoco, Sabrina ; Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca ; Decarli, Adriano ; Lucchi, Silvia ; Mannino, Salvatore ; Panciroli, Emerico ; Rebora, Paola ; Rognoni, Magda ; Sampietro, Giuseppe ; Villa, Marco ; Zocchetti, Carlo ; Zucchi, Alberto ; Valsecchi, Maria Grazia ; Russo, Antonio Giampiero ; OSSERVA Working Group ; OSSERVA Working Group</creatorcontrib><description>Rationale, aims and objectives Assuring the best standards of care – in a sustainable way – in chronic diseases as breast cancer is nowadays an important challenge for any health system. The aim of this study was to present the methodology used to define a set of quality indicators, computable from administrative data for the pathway of care of breast cancer, and its application at a population level. Method The cohort of 2007–2009 incident cases of breast cancer was identified through a network of six cancer registers in Northern Italy. Cases of sarcoma and lymphoma, patients with multiple primary cancers and those metastatic at diagnosis were excluded; 9614 women were retained for the analysis. For each indicator, the sub‐cohort of women eligible for the diagnostic/therapeutic procedures was identified and calculations were performed through record linkage between the cohort and sources of health information. Data on potential available confounders or prognostic factors were also collected. Results For a few indicators, such as cyto‐histological assessment before surgery (62%) and intensive follow‐up (79%), deviation from recommendations was evident. Younger patients (≤50 years) more frequently needed a short term re‐intervention, while older patients less frequently underwent reconstructive surgery and received palliative care. Several indicators had a great variability across hospitals. In some cases, this heterogeneity appeared to be related to the hospital size, with high‐volume hospitals being more compliant to guidelines. Conclusion It is possible to evaluate the quality of cancer care delivered in clinical practice in recent years, in order to implement interventions aimed to improve adherence to international standards of care.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1356-1294</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2753</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jep.12436</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26290172</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>access ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; and evaluation ; Breast cancer ; breast neoplasms ; Breast Neoplasms - therapy ; clinical pathways ; Cohort Studies ; Critical Pathways ; Female ; Guideline Adherence ; health care ; health care evaluation mechanisms ; health care quality ; Humans ; Italy ; Middle Aged ; Oncology Nursing ; Quality control ; quality indicators ; Quality Indicators, Health Care ; Registries</subject><ispartof>Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2016-02, Vol.22 (1), p.62-70</ispartof><rights>2015 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3916-bb97dca29211c01afb6eb2b54a02cebb488b7f9d9821f07a3f13f5bf6c1d6fec3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3916-bb97dca29211c01afb6eb2b54a02cebb488b7f9d9821f07a3f13f5bf6c1d6fec3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjep.12436$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjep.12436$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26290172$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Andreano, Anita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anghinoni, Emanuela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Autelitano, Mariangela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bellini, Aldo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bersani, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bizzoco, Sabrina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Decarli, Adriano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lucchi, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mannino, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Panciroli, Emerico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rebora, Paola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rognoni, Magda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sampietro, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Villa, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zocchetti, Carlo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zucchi, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valsecchi, Maria Grazia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Antonio Giampiero</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OSSERVA Working Group</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OSSERVA Working Group</creatorcontrib><title>Indicators based on registers and administrative data for breast cancer: routine evaluation of oncologic care pathway can be implemented</title><title>Journal of evaluation in clinical practice</title><addtitle>Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice</addtitle><description>Rationale, aims and objectives Assuring the best standards of care – in a sustainable way – in chronic diseases as breast cancer is nowadays an important challenge for any health system. The aim of this study was to present the methodology used to define a set of quality indicators, computable from administrative data for the pathway of care of breast cancer, and its application at a population level. Method The cohort of 2007–2009 incident cases of breast cancer was identified through a network of six cancer registers in Northern Italy. Cases of sarcoma and lymphoma, patients with multiple primary cancers and those metastatic at diagnosis were excluded; 9614 women were retained for the analysis. For each indicator, the sub‐cohort of women eligible for the diagnostic/therapeutic procedures was identified and calculations were performed through record linkage between the cohort and sources of health information. Data on potential available confounders or prognostic factors were also collected. Results For a few indicators, such as cyto‐histological assessment before surgery (62%) and intensive follow‐up (79%), deviation from recommendations was evident. Younger patients (≤50 years) more frequently needed a short term re‐intervention, while older patients less frequently underwent reconstructive surgery and received palliative care. Several indicators had a great variability across hospitals. In some cases, this heterogeneity appeared to be related to the hospital size, with high‐volume hospitals being more compliant to guidelines. Conclusion It is possible to evaluate the quality of cancer care delivered in clinical practice in recent years, in order to implement interventions aimed to improve adherence to international standards of care.</description><subject>access</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>and evaluation</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>breast neoplasms</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>clinical pathways</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Critical Pathways</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Guideline Adherence</subject><subject>health care</subject><subject>health care evaluation mechanisms</subject><subject>health care quality</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Italy</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Oncology Nursing</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>quality indicators</subject><subject>Quality Indicators, Health Care</subject><subject>Registries</subject><issn>1356-1294</issn><issn>1365-2753</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1u1DAURiMEoqWw4AWQJTawSOufxEnYodJOiypgUVR21rV9XTwkcbCTlnkDHhsP03aBhDfXts53dKWvKF4yesjyOVrjdMh4JeSjYp8JWZe8qcXj7b2WJeNdtVc8S2lNKRO0bp4We1zyjrKG7xe_z0frDcwhJqIhoSVhJBGvfZoxf8FoCdjBj_kdYfY3SCzMQFyIREeENBMDo8H4jsSwzH5EgjfQLxnNnuCyzYQ-XHuTuYhkgvn7LWy2IaKR-GHqccBxRvu8eOKgT_jibh4UX09PLo_PyovPq_Pj9xelER2TpdZdYw3wjjNmKAOnJWqu6wooN6h11ba6cZ3tWs4cbUA4JlytnTTMSodGHBRvdt4php8LplkNPhnsexgxLEmxlkvJq67hGX39D7oOSxzzdooL2oq6FS3L1NsdZWJIKaJTU_QDxI1iVG3rUbke9beezL66My56QPtA3veRgaMdcOt73PzfpD6efLlXlrvEtrFfDwmIP5RsRFOrq08rJT6Is8vTbyt1Jf4AHeerOQ</recordid><startdate>201602</startdate><enddate>201602</enddate><creator>Andreano, Anita</creator><creator>Anghinoni, Emanuela</creator><creator>Autelitano, Mariangela</creator><creator>Bellini, Aldo</creator><creator>Bersani, Maurizio</creator><creator>Bizzoco, Sabrina</creator><creator>Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca</creator><creator>Decarli, Adriano</creator><creator>Lucchi, Silvia</creator><creator>Mannino, Salvatore</creator><creator>Panciroli, Emerico</creator><creator>Rebora, Paola</creator><creator>Rognoni, Magda</creator><creator>Sampietro, Giuseppe</creator><creator>Villa, Marco</creator><creator>Zocchetti, Carlo</creator><creator>Zucchi, Alberto</creator><creator>Valsecchi, Maria Grazia</creator><creator>Russo, Antonio Giampiero</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201602</creationdate><title>Indicators based on registers and administrative data for breast cancer: routine evaluation of oncologic care pathway can be implemented</title><author>Andreano, Anita ; Anghinoni, Emanuela ; Autelitano, Mariangela ; Bellini, Aldo ; Bersani, Maurizio ; Bizzoco, Sabrina ; Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca ; Decarli, Adriano ; Lucchi, Silvia ; Mannino, Salvatore ; Panciroli, Emerico ; Rebora, Paola ; Rognoni, Magda ; Sampietro, Giuseppe ; Villa, Marco ; Zocchetti, Carlo ; Zucchi, Alberto ; Valsecchi, Maria Grazia ; Russo, Antonio Giampiero</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3916-bb97dca29211c01afb6eb2b54a02cebb488b7f9d9821f07a3f13f5bf6c1d6fec3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>access</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>and evaluation</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>breast neoplasms</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>clinical pathways</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Critical Pathways</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Guideline Adherence</topic><topic>health care</topic><topic>health care evaluation mechanisms</topic><topic>health care quality</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Italy</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Oncology Nursing</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>quality indicators</topic><topic>Quality Indicators, Health Care</topic><topic>Registries</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Andreano, Anita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anghinoni, Emanuela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Autelitano, Mariangela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bellini, Aldo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bersani, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bizzoco, Sabrina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Decarli, Adriano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lucchi, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mannino, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Panciroli, Emerico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rebora, Paola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rognoni, Magda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sampietro, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Villa, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zocchetti, Carlo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zucchi, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valsecchi, Maria Grazia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Antonio Giampiero</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OSSERVA Working Group</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OSSERVA Working Group</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of evaluation in clinical practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Andreano, Anita</au><au>Anghinoni, Emanuela</au><au>Autelitano, Mariangela</au><au>Bellini, Aldo</au><au>Bersani, Maurizio</au><au>Bizzoco, Sabrina</au><au>Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca</au><au>Decarli, Adriano</au><au>Lucchi, Silvia</au><au>Mannino, Salvatore</au><au>Panciroli, Emerico</au><au>Rebora, Paola</au><au>Rognoni, Magda</au><au>Sampietro, Giuseppe</au><au>Villa, Marco</au><au>Zocchetti, Carlo</au><au>Zucchi, Alberto</au><au>Valsecchi, Maria Grazia</au><au>Russo, Antonio Giampiero</au><aucorp>OSSERVA Working Group</aucorp><aucorp>OSSERVA Working Group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Indicators based on registers and administrative data for breast cancer: routine evaluation of oncologic care pathway can be implemented</atitle><jtitle>Journal of evaluation in clinical practice</jtitle><addtitle>Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice</addtitle><date>2016-02</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>62</spage><epage>70</epage><pages>62-70</pages><issn>1356-1294</issn><eissn>1365-2753</eissn><abstract>Rationale, aims and objectives Assuring the best standards of care – in a sustainable way – in chronic diseases as breast cancer is nowadays an important challenge for any health system. The aim of this study was to present the methodology used to define a set of quality indicators, computable from administrative data for the pathway of care of breast cancer, and its application at a population level. Method The cohort of 2007–2009 incident cases of breast cancer was identified through a network of six cancer registers in Northern Italy. Cases of sarcoma and lymphoma, patients with multiple primary cancers and those metastatic at diagnosis were excluded; 9614 women were retained for the analysis. For each indicator, the sub‐cohort of women eligible for the diagnostic/therapeutic procedures was identified and calculations were performed through record linkage between the cohort and sources of health information. Data on potential available confounders or prognostic factors were also collected. Results For a few indicators, such as cyto‐histological assessment before surgery (62%) and intensive follow‐up (79%), deviation from recommendations was evident. Younger patients (≤50 years) more frequently needed a short term re‐intervention, while older patients less frequently underwent reconstructive surgery and received palliative care. Several indicators had a great variability across hospitals. In some cases, this heterogeneity appeared to be related to the hospital size, with high‐volume hospitals being more compliant to guidelines. Conclusion It is possible to evaluate the quality of cancer care delivered in clinical practice in recent years, in order to implement interventions aimed to improve adherence to international standards of care.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>26290172</pmid><doi>10.1111/jep.12436</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1356-1294
ispartof Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2016-02, Vol.22 (1), p.62-70
issn 1356-1294
1365-2753
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826624972
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects access
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
and evaluation
Breast cancer
breast neoplasms
Breast Neoplasms - therapy
clinical pathways
Cohort Studies
Critical Pathways
Female
Guideline Adherence
health care
health care evaluation mechanisms
health care quality
Humans
Italy
Middle Aged
Oncology Nursing
Quality control
quality indicators
Quality Indicators, Health Care
Registries
title Indicators based on registers and administrative data for breast cancer: routine evaluation of oncologic care pathway can be implemented
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T12%3A08%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Indicators%20based%20on%20registers%20and%20administrative%20data%20for%20breast%20cancer:%20routine%20evaluation%20of%20oncologic%20care%20pathway%20can%20be%20implemented&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20evaluation%20in%20clinical%20practice&rft.au=Andreano,%20Anita&rft.aucorp=OSSERVA%20Working%20Group&rft.date=2016-02&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=62&rft.epage=70&rft.pages=62-70&rft.issn=1356-1294&rft.eissn=1365-2753&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jep.12436&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2308358381%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2308358381&rft_id=info:pmid/26290172&rfr_iscdi=true