Mahasti Saghatchian1, Frédérique Thonon2, Femke Boomsma2, Henk Hummel2, Bert Koot2, Chris Harrison2, Abinaya Rajan2, Dominique de Valeriola2, Renée Otter2, José Laranja Pontes2, Claudio Lombardo2, Eoin McGrath2, Ulrik Ringborg2, Thomas Tursz2, Wim van Harten2. 1. Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Integraal Kankercentruum Nederland, Grongingen; Compusense, Voorhout; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Institut Jules Bordet; Organisation of European Cancer Institutes, Brussels, Belgium; Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal; European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Barcelona, Spain; and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden mahasti.saghatchian@gustaveroussy.fr. 2. Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Integraal Kankercentruum Nederland, Grongingen; Compusense, Voorhout; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Institut Jules Bordet; Organisation of European Cancer Institutes, Brussels, Belgium; Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal; European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Barcelona, Spain; and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In order to improve the quality of care in Cancer Centers (CC) and designate Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs), the Organization for European Cancer Institutes (OECI) launched an Accreditation and Designation (A&D) program. The program facilitates the collection of defined data and the assessment of cancer center quality. This study analyzes the results of the first 10 European centers that entered the program. METHODS: The assessment included 927 items divided across qualitative and quantitative questionnaires. Data collected during self-assessment and peer-review from the 10 first participating centers were combined in a database for comparative analysis using simple statistics. Quantitative and qualitative results were validated by auditors during the peer review visits. RESULTS: Volumes of various functions and activities dedicated to care, research, and education varied widely among centers. There were no significant differences in resources for radiology, radiotherapy, pathologic diagnostic, and surgery. Differences were observed in the use of clinical pathways but not for the practices of holding multidisciplinary team meetings and conforming to guidelines. Regarding human resources, main differences were in the composition and number of supportive care and research staff. All 10 centers applied as CCCs; five obtained the label, and five were designated as CCs. CONCLUSION: The OECI A&D program allows comparisons between centers with regard to management, research, care, education, and designation as CCs or CCCs. Through the peer review system, recommendations for improvements are given. Assessing the added value of the program, as well as research and patient treatment outcomes, is the next step.
PURPOSE: In order to improve the quality of care in Cancer Centers (CC) and designate Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs), the Organization for European Cancer Institutes (OECI) launched an Accreditation and Designation (A&D) program. The program facilitates the collection of defined data and the assessment of cancer center quality. This study analyzes the results of the first 10 European centers that entered the program. METHODS: The assessment included 927 items divided across qualitative and quantitative questionnaires. Data collected during self-assessment and peer-review from the 10 first participating centers were combined in a database for comparative analysis using simple statistics. Quantitative and qualitative results were validated by auditors during the peer review visits. RESULTS: Volumes of various functions and activities dedicated to care, research, and education varied widely among centers. There were no significant differences in resources for radiology, radiotherapy, pathologic diagnostic, and surgery. Differences were observed in the use of clinical pathways but not for the practices of holding multidisciplinary team meetings and conforming to guidelines. Regarding human resources, main differences were in the composition and number of supportive care and research staff. All 10 centers applied as CCCs; five obtained the label, and five were designated as CCs. CONCLUSION: The OECI A&D program allows comparisons between centers with regard to management, research, care, education, and designation as CCs or CCCs. Through the peer review system, recommendations for improvements are given. Assessing the added value of the program, as well as research and patient treatment outcomes, is the next step.
Authors: Sebastian Kehrloesser; Simon Oberst; Willien Westerhuis; Astrid Wendler; Anke Wind; Harriët Blaauwgeers; Jean-Benoit Burrion; Péter Nagy; Gunnar Saeter; Eva Gustafsson; Paolo De Paoli; József Lovey; Claudio Lombardo; Thierry Philip; Dominique de Valeriola; Marjet Docter; Femke Boomsma; Mahasti Saghatchian; Marek Svoboda; Irene Philip; Francesco Monetti; Henk Hummel; Gordon McVie; Renée Otter; Wim van Harten Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Syaribah Noor Brice; Paul Harper; Tom Crosby; Daniel Gartner; Edilson Arruda; Tracey England; Emma Aspland; Kieran Foley Journal: J Health Organ Manag Date: 2021-03-24
Authors: Aricca D Van Citters; Alice M Kennedy; Kathryn B Kirkland; Konstantin H Dragnev; Steven D Leach; Madge E Buus-Frank; Elissa F Malcolm; Megan M Holthoff; Anne B Holmes; Eugene C Nelson; Susan A Reeves; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: Christoph Kowalski; Ullrich Graeven; Christof von Kalle; Hauke Lang; Matthias W Beckmann; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Martin Burchardt; Michael Ehrenfeld; Jan Fichtner; Stephan Grabbe; Hans Hoffmann; Heinrich Iro; Stefan Post; Anton Scharl; Uwe Schlegel; Thomas Seufferlein; Walter Stummer; Dieter Ukena; Julia Ferencz; Simone Wesselmann Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 4.430