BACKGROUND: In 2007 the Dutch Cancer Society formed a 'Quality of Cancer Care' taskforce comprising medical specialists, from all disciplines involved in the care for cancer patients. This taskforce was charged with the evaluation of quality of cancer care in the Netherlands and the development of strategies for improvement. OBJECTIVE: The experts first focused on the relation between procedural volume and patient outcome and later aimed to identify other factors associated with high and low quality of the care provided in different regions and (types of) hospitals in the Netherlands. The question if cancer care in the Netherlands could be organized differently to assure high quality of care for all patients, was the main subject of investigation. METHODS: An extensive review of the literature on infrastructure, volume and specialization on the one hand and outcome on the other was performed. In addition, a meta-analysis of the volume-outcome relationship for pancreatectomies, bladder, lung, colorectal and breast cancer resections was performed. Finally, variation in quality of cancer care between regions, groups of hospitals and individual hospitals in our country was investigated on data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. RESULTS: In the Netherlands quality of care varies by hospital and region. These differences are not limited to surgical procedures and postoperative mortality, but are also demonstrated in other parts of the care process. Differences are only partly explained by differences in infrastructure, procedural volume and specialization between hospitals. Essential information on differences in case mix between these hospitals are lacking from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. More detailed clinical data are needed to reveal the mechanisms behind the differences in quality of care between Dutch hospitals. CONCLUSION: On a population level, there is potential for improvement of outcome for cancer patients in the Netherlands by reducing variation in optimal treatment rates between hospitals. Not only treatment of tumours with a low incidence but also other complex or high risk cancer procedures should be provided in a specialized setting, with the right infrastructure, sufficient volume and adequate expertise. In addition, outcomes should be monitored continuously and fed back to individual caregivers. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: In 2007 the Dutch Cancer Society formed a 'Quality of Cancer Care' taskforce comprising medical specialists, from all disciplines involved in the care for cancerpatients. This taskforce was charged with the evaluation of quality of cancer care in the Netherlands and the development of strategies for improvement. OBJECTIVE: The experts first focused on the relation between procedural volume and patient outcome and later aimed to identify other factors associated with high and low quality of the care provided in different regions and (types of) hospitals in the Netherlands. The question if cancer care in the Netherlands could be organized differently to assure high quality of care for all patients, was the main subject of investigation. METHODS: An extensive review of the literature on infrastructure, volume and specialization on the one hand and outcome on the other was performed. In addition, a meta-analysis of the volume-outcome relationship for pancreatectomies, bladder, lung, colorectal and breast cancer resections was performed. Finally, variation in quality of cancer care between regions, groups of hospitals and individual hospitals in our country was investigated on data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. RESULTS: In the Netherlands quality of care varies by hospital and region. These differences are not limited to surgical procedures and postoperative mortality, but are also demonstrated in other parts of the care process. Differences are only partly explained by differences in infrastructure, procedural volume and specialization between hospitals. Essential information on differences in case mix between these hospitals are lacking from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. More detailed clinical data are needed to reveal the mechanisms behind the differences in quality of care between Dutch hospitals. CONCLUSION: On a population level, there is potential for improvement of outcome for cancerpatients in the Netherlands by reducing variation in optimal treatment rates between hospitals. Not only treatment of tumours with a low incidence but also other complex or high risk cancer procedures should be provided in a specialized setting, with the right infrastructure, sufficient volume and adequate expertise. In addition, outcomes should be monitored continuously and fed back to individual caregivers. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: John N Melvan; Manu S Sancheti; Theresa Gillespie; Dana C Nickleach; Yuan Liu; Kristin Higgins; Suresh Ramalingam; Joseph Lipscomb; Felix G Fernandez Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Emma C Gertsen; Lucas Goense; Hylke J F Brenkman; Richard van Hillegersberg; Jelle P Ruurda Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 7.370
Authors: Robert T van Kooten; Daan M Voeten; Ewout W Steyerberg; Henk H Hartgrink; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Michel W J M Wouters Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-09-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Robert T van Kooten; Renu R Bahadoer; Bouwdewijn Ter Buurkes de Vries; Michel W J M Wouters; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Henk H Hartgrink; Hein Putter; Johan L Dikken Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 2.885
Authors: Michelle Chiu; Gregory L Bryson; Anne Lui; James M Watters; Monica Taljaard; Howard J Nathan Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Melvin J Kilsdonk; Sabine Siesling; Boukje A C van Dijk; Michel W Wouters; Wim H van Harten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daan M Voeten; Leonie R van der Werf; Johanna W van Sandick; Richard van Hillegersberg; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 4.584