Assessing quality of medical care: modern methods and prospects for improvement

INTRODUCTION. Assessment of the quality of medical care is the most important element of modern healthcare aimed at improving the effectiveness of treatment, patient satisfaction and ensuring the safety of medical services. The development of innovative technologies, the need to standardize approaches to diagnosis and therapy require improvement of existing methods of assessment.

OBJECTIVE. Analyze existing methods for assessing the quality of medical care, identify their limitations and factors affecting the accuracy and objectivity of the assessment, and develop recommendations for their improvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study is based on the analysis of scientific publications presented in international databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) and the Russian scientific electronic resource eLIBRARY.RU. Key words used: assessment of the quality of medical care, patient satisfaction, quality of life assessment scales. The works published in the period from 2010 to 2024 were included. The methods of content analysis, comparative analysis and statistical data processing were used.

RESULTS. The analysis showed that the most common model for assessing the quality of medical care is the Donnabedien model, which includes three key components: structure, process and outcome. An important role is played by standardized quality of life assessment scales (SF-36, EQ-5D, WHOQOL-BREF), which provide a comprehensive indicator of the impact of medical interventions on patients. It is shown that the key indicators are patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, accessibility and safety of medical services.

DISCUSSION. Current trends in assessing the quality of care include an increased emphasis on the integration of digital technologies, big data analysis, the use of electronic medical records and clinical decision support systems. There are revealed problems related to the subjectivity of conclusions, the need for cultural adaptation of quality of life assessment scales and the variability of applied methodologies in different countries.

CONCLUSION. Improvement of the system for assessing the quality of medical care requires a comprehensive approach, including standardization of methods, adaptation of quality of life assessment scales, integration of digital technologies and increased attention to patient safety. The study results can be used to optimize the quality management of medical services and develop effective strategies to improve patient satisfaction.

1. Busse R., Klazinga N., Panteli D., Quentin W., et al. Improving healthcare quality in Europe: Characteristics, effectiveness and implementation of different strategies // Copenhagen (Denmark): European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. [Internet]. 2019.

2. Young M., Smith M. A. Standards and Evaluation of Healthcare Quality, Safety, and Person-Centered Care. StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. 2022. Affiliations expand. PMID: 35015457.

3. Vladzimirskiy A. V. Matrix for direct-to-consumer telemedicine quality assessing. Journal of Telemedicine and E-Health, 2020, No. 6 (4), pp. 37–44 (In Russ.)]. doi: 10.29188/2542-2413-2020-6-4-34-44.

4. Shestakova E. V., Mamykina K. K. Development of a methodology for assessing the quality of paid medical services. Synergy of Sciences, 2021, No. 66, pp. 66–88 (In Russ.)].

5. Fedorova I. Yu., Reshetov D. N. Quality of medical services and factors influencing changes in its parameters under conditions of social market economy. Economics and society: modern development models, 2018, Vol. 8, No. 4 (22), pp. 92–102 (In Russ.)].

6. Sizov D. A., Litovka A. B. Problems of determining the quality of medical care. Eurasian Advocacy, 2019, No. 1(38), pp. 43–47 (In Russ.)].

7. Schwabe D., Becker, K., Seyferth, M., et al. The METRIC-framework for assessing data quality for trustworthy AI in medicine: a systematic review. Npj Digital Medicin, 2024, No. 7, pp. 203. doi: 10.1038/s41746-024-01196-4.

8. Dumbuya J.S., Ahmad B., Zeng C., et al. Assessing the effectiveness of measurement scales in evaluating the health-related quality of life in rare disease patients after treatment: a systematic review. Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 2024, No. 22, pp. 108. doi: 10.1186/s12955-024-02324-0.

9. O’Kane M., Agrawal S., Binder L., Dzau V., Gandhi T. K., Harrington R., Mate K., McGann P., Meyers D., Rosen P., Schreiber M., Schummers D. An Equity Agenda for the Field of Health Care Quality Improvement. NAM Perspect, 2021. doi: 10.31478/202109b.

10. Sakr F., Dabbous M., Akel M., Salameh P., Hosseini H. Cultural adaptation and validation of the Arabic version of the short 12-item stroke-specific quality of life scale. Frontiers in Neurology, 2023, No. 14, pp. 1232602. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1232602.

11. Oluchi S. E., Manaf R. A., Ismail S., Kadir Shahar H., Mahmud A., Udeani T. K. Health Related Quality of Life Measurements for Diabetes: A Systematic Review. The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021, No. 18 (17), pp. 9245. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18179245.

12. Romanenko N. A., Chechetkin A. V., Zhiguleva L. Yu., et al. Correction of Anemia and Evaluation of Efficacy of Red Blood Cell Transfusion in Patients with Oncohematological Diseases. Clinical oncohematology, 2018, No. 11(3), pp. 265–272 (In Russ.)]. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2018-11-3-265-272.

13. Nikitina T. P., Efremov S. M., Melnichenko V. Ya., Penzin O. V., Ionova T. I. Use of digital technologies to monitor patient status and quality of life. Hematology. Transfusiology. Eastern Europe, 2023, No. 9(3), pp. 341–356 (In Russ.)

14. Lennon A.M., Buchanan A.H., Kinde I., Warren A., Honushefsky A., Cohain A.T., et al. Feasibility of blood testing combined with PET-CT to screen for cancer and guide intervention. Science, 2020, No. 369, pp. 9601. doi: 10.1126/science.abb9601.

15. Xie L., Du X., Wang S., Shi P., Qian Y., Zhang W., et al. Development and evaluation of cancer differentiation analysis technology: a novel biophysics-based cancer screening method. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, 2022, No. 22, pp. 111–7. doi: 10.1080/14737159.2021.2013201.

16. Mikami H., Kimura O., Yamamoto H., Kikuchi S., Nakamura Y., Ando T., Yamakado M. A multicentre clinical validation of AminoIndex Cancer Screening (AICS). Scientific Reports, 2019, No. 9, pp. 7. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-50304-y.

17. Brito-Rocha T., Constancio V., Henrique R., Jeronimo C. Shifting the cancer screening paradigm: the rising potential of blood-based multi-cancer early detection tests. Cells, 2023, No. 12, pp. 935. doi: 10.3390/cells12060935.

18. Lee R., Robbins H.A. PATHFINDER: another step on the uncharted path to multicancer screening. Lancet, 2023, No. 402, pp. 1213–1215. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02050-0.

19. Etzioni R., Gulati R., Weiss N.S. Multicancer early detection: learning from the past to meet the future. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2022, No. 114, pp. 349–352. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djab168.

20. Wise J. A blood test for multiple cancers: game changer or overhyped? British Medical Journal, 2022, No. 378, pp. 2279. doi:10.1136/bmj.o2279.

21. Mahase E. Clinicians raise concerns over pilot of blood test for multiple cancers. British Medical Journal, 2023, No. 383, pp. 2268. doi:10.1136/bmj.p2268.

22. Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mulrow C.D., et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 2021, No. 372, pp. 71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71.

23. Thomas J., Graziosi S., Brunton J., Ghouze Z., O’Driscoll P., Bond M., et al. EPPI-Reviewer: Advanced Software for Systematic Reviews, Maps and Evidence Synthesis. London: EPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, 2022.

24. Stevenson M., Sergeant E., Firestone S. epiR: Tools for the Analysis of Epidemiological Data. R Package Version 2.0.65. [Internet]. 2023.

25. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna (Austria). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Internet]. 2023.

26. Whiting P.F., Rutjes A.W., Westwood M.E., Mallett S., Deeks J.J., Reitsma J.B., et al.; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2011, No. 155, pp. 529–536. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.

27. Wade R., Nevitt S., Harden M., Dias S., Raine G., Khouja C., et al. Multi-cancer Early Detection Tests for Screening. PROSPERO. [Internet]. 2023.

28. Klein E.A., Richards D., Cohn A., Tummala M., Lapham R., Cosgrove D., et al. Clinical validation of a targeted methylation-based multi-cancer early detection test using an independent validation set. Annals of Oncology, 2021, No. 32, pp. 1167–1177. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2021.05.806.

29. Rossi S.H., Stewart G.D. Clinical validation of a targeted methylation-based multi-cancer early detection test using an independent validation set. European Urology, 2022, No. 82, pp. 442–443. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.07.033.

30. Ventegodt S., Merrick J., and Andersen N.J. Measurement of Quality of Life II. From the Philosophy of Life to Science. TheScientificWorldJournal, 2003, No. 3, pp. 962-971. doi:10.1100/tsw.2003.76.

31. Klein E.A., Richards D., Cohn A., Tummala M., Lapham R., Cosgrove D., et al. Detecting Cancer Signal Across Multiple Cancers with One Blood Draw: Validating a Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) Yest. Conference: American Academy of Family Physicians, Family Medicine Experience, Anaheim (California), 2021.

32. Venn O., Bredno J., Thornton A., Chang C., Hubbell E., Kurtzman K., et al. Robustness of a Targeted Methylation-based Multi-cancer Early Detection (MCED) Test to Population Differences in Self-reported Ethnicity. AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved, Orlando, 2023.

33. Tang W.H.W., Yimer H., Tummala M., Shao S., Chung G., Clement J., et al. Performance of a targeted methylation-based multi-cancer early detection test by race/ethnicity. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2021, No. 39, pp. 3071. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107384.

34. Yimer H.A., Tang W.H.W., Tummala M.K., Shao S., Chung G.G., Couch F., et al. Detection of cancer signal for over 50 AJCC cancer types with a multi-cancer early-detection test. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2021, No. 39, pp. 3072. doi:10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.3072.

35. Papadopoulos N. A first-of-its-kind prospective study of a multi-cancer blood test to screen and manage 10,000 women with no history of cancer. Cancer Research, 2020, No. 80, pp. 22. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2020-CT022

36. Suzuki M. Breast cancer screening by evaluating amino acid levels in the blood. Breast, 2015, No. 24, pp. 69.

37. Schrag D., Beer T.M., McDonnell C.H., Nadauld L., Dilaveri C.A., Klein E.A., et al. Evaluation of anxiety, distress and satisfaction with a multi-cancer early detection test. Annals of Oncology, 2022, No. 33, pp. 963.

38. Klein E.A., McDonnell C.H., Nadauld L., Dilaveri C.A., Reid R., Marinac C.R., et al. Clinical Evaluation of Cancer Signal Origin (CSO) Prediction and Diagnostic Resolution Following Multi-cancer Early Detection Testing. Chicago (Illinois): American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO); 2–6 June 2023.

39. Westgate C., Kingsbury D., Poliak M., Lipton J., McMillin M., Malinow L.B., et al. Early Real-world Experience with a Multi-cancer Early Detection Test. Chicago (Illinois): American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO); 2–6 June 2023.

40. McDonnell C.H., Hudnut A.G., Behl D., Ang R., Spinelli B., Jacobs D., et al. Diagnostic workup following a multicancer early detection test with a cancer signal origin prediction. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2022, No. 40, pp. 15037. doi:10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.e15037

41. Buchanan A.H., Lennon A.M., Rego S.P., Choudhry O.A., Elias P.Z., Sadler J.R., et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of cancers diagnosed following detection by a blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2023, No. 41, pp. 3037. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.3037

42. Lennon A.M. Buchanan A.H., Rego S.P., Choudhry O.A., Elias P.Z., Sadler J.R., et al. Outcomes in participants with a false positive multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test: results from >4 years follow-up from DETECT-A, the first large, prospective, interventional MCED study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2023, No. 41, pp. 3039. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.3039

43. McGuinness L.A., Higgins J.P.T. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Research synthesis methods, 2021, No. 12, pp. 55-61. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1411.

44. GRAIL. Written Evidence Submitted by GRAIL (FCR0024) to the Health and Social Care Committee Future Cancer Inquiry. UK Parliament Health and Social Care Committee, 2023.

45. Cristiano S., Leal A., Phallen J., Fiksel J., Adleff V., Bruhm D.C., et al. Genome-wide cell-free DNA fragmentation in patients with cancer. Nature, 2019, No. 570, pp. 385–389. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1272-6.

46. Annapragada A.V., Medina J.E., Lof P., Mathios D., Foda Z.H., Noe M., et al. Early detection of ovarian cancer using cellfree DNA fragmentomes. Cancer Research, 2023, No. 83, pp. 773. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-24-0393.

47. Xu L., Wang J., Yang T., Tao J., Liu X., Ye Z., et al. Toward the development of a $100 screening test for 6 major cancer types. Cancer Research, 2020, No. 80, pp. 4601. doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2020-4601.

48. Xu L., Wang J., Ma W., Liu X., Li S., Chen S., et al. Validation of a high performing blood test for multiple major cancer screenings. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2021, No. 39, pp. 10561. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.10561.

49. Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center. PanTum Technique for the Detection of Peripheral Blood APO10 and TKTL1 in the Diagnosis of High Incidence of Malignant Tumors in Chinese Population. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, 2020.

50. Millennium Oncology India Private Limited. A Trial for Confirming the Accuracy of PanTum Test for Solid Tumor Detection. Clinical Trials Registry India, 2022.