PURPOSE: The National Bowel Cancer Audit Project (NBOCAP) collects data from hospitals in the UK and aims to improve surgical outcomes and quality of care for patients. The aims of this study were to understand why trusts were/were not participating in the NBOCAP and how to improve the quality of data collected and feedback. METHODS: This was a prospective e-survey on colorectal surgeons' attitudes towards and opinions of the NBOCAP, within trusts in the UK. A questionnaire was emailed to members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI). RESULTS: Of the 171 trusts contacted by email, 66% of trusts (n = 117) had at least 1 consultant respond. Of the 117 trusts that responded, 60 (51.2%) had submitted data to the NBOCAP. A total of 549 consultants received the questionnaire, and 159 (29.0%) consultants responded. Fifty-one per cent (n = 60) of the trusts had submitted data to the NBOCAP. Reasons for data submission included the following: comparison of a units' data with national data (56.8%), a national audit improves outcomes (45.9%) and generation of information for use at a local level (42.6%). The main reasons for non-submission were as follows: lack of technical support (23.6%), lack of funding (19.6%) and lack of dedicated audit time (18.9%). Ninety-six (60.4%) consultants felt that the audit report should identify individual trust results. Fifty-three per cent of consultants (n = 87) rated their trusts' resources for audit as being very poor or poor. CONCLUSION: Consultant members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) within hospital trusts in the UK feel participation in the National Bowel Cancer Audit improves patients' quality of care and surgical outcomes. Increased awareness of the benefits of the NBOCAP and improved allocation of resources from hospital trusts could improve participation.
PURPOSE: The National Bowel Cancer Audit Project (NBOCAP) collects data from hospitals in the UK and aims to improve surgical outcomes and quality of care for patients. The aims of this study were to understand why trusts were/were not participating in the NBOCAP and how to improve the quality of data collected and feedback. METHODS: This was a prospective e-survey on colorectal surgeons' attitudes towards and opinions of the NBOCAP, within trusts in the UK. A questionnaire was emailed to members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI). RESULTS: Of the 171 trusts contacted by email, 66% of trusts (n = 117) had at least 1 consultant respond. Of the 117 trusts that responded, 60 (51.2%) had submitted data to the NBOCAP. A total of 549 consultants received the questionnaire, and 159 (29.0%) consultants responded. Fifty-one per cent (n = 60) of the trusts had submitted data to the NBOCAP. Reasons for data submission included the following: comparison of a units' data with national data (56.8%), a national audit improves outcomes (45.9%) and generation of information for use at a local level (42.6%). The main reasons for non-submission were as follows: lack of technical support (23.6%), lack of funding (19.6%) and lack of dedicated audit time (18.9%). Ninety-six (60.4%) consultants felt that the audit report should identify individual trust results. Fifty-three per cent of consultants (n = 87) rated their trusts' resources for audit as being very poor or poor. CONCLUSION: Consultant members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) within hospital trusts in the UK feel participation in the National Bowel Cancer Audit improves patients' quality of care and surgical outcomes. Increased awareness of the benefits of the NBOCAP and improved allocation of resources from hospital trusts could improve participation.
Authors: M P Coleman; G Gatta; A Verdecchia; J Estève; M Sant; H Storm; C Allemani; L Ciccolallo; M Santaquilani; F Berrino Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2003 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: E Onel; C Hamond; J H Wasson; B B Berlin; M G Ely; V P Laudone; A E Tarantino; P C Albertsen Journal: Urology Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Joren Vanbraband; Nancy Van Damme; Gauthier Bouche; Geert Silversmit; Anke De Geyndt; Eric de Jonge; Gerd Jacomen; Frédéric Goffin; Hannelore Denys; Frédéric Amant Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Stijn C Voeten; Leti van Bodegom-Vos; J H Hegeman; Michel W J M Wouters; Pieta Krijnen; Inger B Schipper Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 2.617