Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Based on the example of Gynaecological Cancer Centres (GCCs) certified by the German Cancer Society, this study evaluates the results of medical-guideline-derived quality indicators (QIs) for cervical cancer (CC) and ovarian cancer (OC), examines the development of indicator implementation over time as well as the status of guideline-compliant care and identifies improvement measures.
Methods
QI results for patients with CC and OC treated in GCCs between 2015 and 2019 are analysed. The median, overall proportion and standard deviation of each QI were calculated. Two-sided Cochran-Armitage tests were applied.
Results
QIs are divided into two categories: process-organization (PO-QIs) and treatment-procedures (TP-QIs), to allow a differentiated analysis for identifying improvement measures.
PO-QIs that reflect the implementation of processes and structures show a high degree of application. PO-QIs have a tremendous influence on the quality of care and are easy to implement through SOPs.
TP-QIs report on treatments that are performed in the GCC. TP-QIs that report on systemic therapies reach a plateau where the guideline is known, but patient-related-factors meaningfully prevent further increase. TP-QIs that report on surgical interventions fluctuate. The most relevant factors are practitioners’ personal skills. Besides the discussion of results amongst peers during the audit, improvement measures could include surgical courses or coaching.
Conclusion
The analysis shows that a combination of different measures is necessary to anchor quality sustainably in health care and thus improve it.
Funder
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Cancer Research,Oncology,General Medicine
Reference23 articles.
1. Adam H, Siber NT, Bruns J et al (2018) Krebspatienten qualitätsgesichert multidisziplinär und evidenzbasiert versorgen: das Zertifizierungssystem der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft. BARMER GEK Gesundheitswesen aktuell 2018:136–155
2. Beckmann MW, Schlieter H, Richter P, Wesselmann S (2016) Considerations on the improved integration of medical guidelines into routine clincal practice - a review and concept proposal. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 76:369–376
3. Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ et al (1998) Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA 280:1747–1751. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.20.1747
4. Bristow RE, Zahurak ML, Diaz-Montes TP et al (2009) Impact of surgeon and hospital ovarian cancer surgical case volume on in-hospital mortality and related short-term outcomes. Gynecol Oncol 115:334–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.08.025
5. du Bois A, Rochon J, Pfisterer J et al (2009) Variations in institutional infrastructure, physician specialization and experience, and outcome in ovarian cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 112:422–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.09.036
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献