Quality-of-care framework in urological cancers: where do we stand?

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)


What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? 

Provision of high-quality care necessitates the identification and measurement of relevant quality indicators. Urological surgery currently does not have a validated quality-of-care framework to guide surgical quality improvement. This article aims to delineate quality of care processes, current status of quality indicators for major urological cancers as well as recommend a provisional framework for evaluation of quality for urological procedures. Growing demands for patient safety, lower cost and quality of care have resulted in several initiatives of quality measurement across urological surgery. Although candidate indicators have been proposed in various procedures, the field still lacks a valid quality framework. Better understanding of the interplay between patient selection, surgical expertise, preoperative-, intraoperative, postoperative processes and outcomes is needed. Consensus needs to be achieved in which validated structural, process and outcomes measures to employ, how this data should be collected, which agencies to share this data with and how to use this data to effect change in health policy. Compliance with quality framework needs to be continuously audited with its outcomes frequently benchmarked against international standards. Pursuit of quality improvement schemes require significant investment and need to be weighed against current budgetary constraints.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1436 - 1443
Number of pages8
JournalBJU International
Issue number10
Early online date11 Nov 2011
Publication statusPublished - May 2012


  • Patient Safety/standards
  • Quality of Health Care/standards
  • Urologic Neoplasms/therapy
  • Urology/standards


Dive into the research topics of 'Quality-of-care framework in urological cancers: where do we stand?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this