PURPOSE: Decisions regarding treatment for @entity5 are frustrated not only by inadequate evidence favoring one treatment modality but also by the absence of data comparing quality among providers. In fact, the choice of provider may be as important as the choice of treatment. We undertook this study to develop an infrastructure to evaluate variations in quality of care for @entity1 with @entity5 . METHODS: We enlisted several sources to develop a list of proposed quality-of-care indicators and covariates. After an extensive structured literature review and a series of focus groups with @entity1 and their spouses, we conducted structured interviews with national @entity263 treatment. We then convened an expert panel using the RAND consensus method to discuss and rate the validity and feasibility of the proposed quality indicators and covariates. RESULTS: The panel endorsed 49 quality-of-care indicators and 14 covariates, which make up our final list of candidate measures. Several domains of quality are represented in the selected indicators, including @entity1 volume, pretreatment referrals, preoperative testing, interpretation of pathology specimens, and 10-year disease-free survival. Covariates include measures of case-mix, such as @entity1 age and comorbidity. CONCLUSION: This study establishes a foundation on which to build quality-of-care assessment tools to evaluate the treatment of @entity5 . The next step is to field-test the indicators for feasibility, reliability, validity, and clinical utility in a population-based sample. This work will begin to inform medical decision-making for @entity1 and their physicians.

Quality-of-care indicators for XXXX .

@entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['early-stage prostate cancer'] @entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'patient', 'men'] @entity263 :: ('MESH:D011471', 'Disease') :: ['academic leaders in prostate cancer']
@entity5 :: (MESH:D009369,Disease) :: ['early-stage prostate cancer']
