Back to Authors

Walters, Ronald S.

Mayo Clinic

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Citations 2

Quality Measurement in Cancer Care: A Review and Endorsement of High-Impact Measures and Concepts
D’Amico, Thomas A., Bandini, Lindsey, Balch, Alan , Benson, Al B. , Edge, Stephen B. , Fitzgerald, Clara , Green, Robert J. , Koh, Wui-Jin, Kolodziej, Michael , Kumar, Shaji , Meropol, Neal J. , Mohler, James L. , Pfister, David G. , Walters, Ronald S., Carlson, Robert W. , Fitzgerald, C. Lyn, Green, Robert J.

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | March 5, 2020 | Volume: 18 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 250-259

10.6004/jnccn.2020.7536 Get It

Although oncology care has evolved, outcome assessment remains a key challenge. Outcome measurement requires identification and adoption of a succinct list of metrics indicative of high-quality cancer care for use within and across healthcare systems. NCCN established an advisory committee, the NCCN Quality and Outcomes Committee, consisting of provider experts from NCCN Member Institutions and other stakeholders, including payers and patient advocacy, community oncology, and health information technology representatives, to review the existing quality landscape and identify contemporary, relevant cancer quality and outcomes measures by reevaluating validated measures for endorsement and proposing new measure concepts to fill crucial gaps. This manuscript reports on 22 measures and concepts; 15 that align with existing measures and 7 that are new.
National Quality Forum Guidelines for Evaluating the Scientific Acceptability of Risk-adjusted Clinical Outcome Measures
Maddox, Karen E. Joynt , Nerenz, David R. , Cella, David , Kunisch, Joseph, Walters, Ronald S., White, Susan , Lin, Zhenqiu , Glance, Laurent G. , Johnson, Karen , Borah, Bijan J. , Kurlansky, Paul A. , Perloff, Jennifer N. , Stoto, ­Michael A.

Annals of Surgery | December 17, 2019 | Volume: 271 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 1048-1055

10.1097/sla.0000000000003592 Get It

Quality measurement is at the heart of efforts to achieve high-quality surgical and medical care at a lower cost. Without accurate quality measures, it is not possible to appropriately align incentives with quality. The aim of these National Quality Forum (NQF) guidelines is to provide measure developers and other stakeholders with guidance on the standards used by the NQF to evaluate the scientific acceptability of performance measures. Using a methodologically rigorous and transparent process for evaluating health care quality measures is the best insurance that alternative payment plans will truly reward and promote higher quality care. Performance measures need to be credible in order for physicians and hospitals to willingly partner with payers in efforts to improve population outcomes. Our goal in creating this position paper is to promote the transparency of NQF evaluations, improve the quality of performance measurements, and engage surgeons and all other stakeholders to work together to advance the science of performance measurement.