Joan Prades1, Paula Manchon-Walsh2, Judit Solà2, Josep A Espinàs2, Alex Guarga3, Josep M Borras2. 1. 1 Department of Health, Catalonian Cancer Strategy, Hospital Duran i Reynals, Gran via 199, 08908 Hospitalet, Barcelona, Spain 2 Biomedical Research Institute of Bellvitge (IDIBELL), University of Barcelona (UB), Hospital Duran i Reynals, Gran via 199, 08908 Hospitalet, Barcelona, Spain jlprades@iconcologia.net. 2. 1 Department of Health, Catalonian Cancer Strategy, Hospital Duran i Reynals, Gran via 199, 08908 Hospitalet, Barcelona, Spain 2 Biomedical Research Institute of Bellvitge (IDIBELL), University of Barcelona (UB), Hospital Duran i Reynals, Gran via 199, 08908 Hospitalet, Barcelona, Spain. 3. 3 Health Service Procurement & Assessment, Catalonian Health Service (CatSalut), Travessera de les Corts 131-159, Barcelona, 08028, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of centralizing rectal cancer surgery in Catalonia (Spain) was to improve the quality of patient care. We evaluated the impact of this policy by assessing patterns of care, comparing the clinical audits carried out and analysing the implications of the healthcare reform from an organizational perspective. METHODS: A mixed methods approach based on a convergent parallel design was used. Quality of rectal cancer care was assessed by means of a clinical audit for all patients receiving radical surgery for rectal cancer in two time periods (2005-2007 and 2011-2012). The qualitative study consisted of 18 semi-structured interviews in September-December 2014, with healthcare professionals, managers and experts. RESULTS: From 2005-2007 to 2011-2012, hospitals performing rectal cancer surgery decreased from 51 to 32. The proportion of patients undergoing surgery in high volume centres increased from 37.5% to 52.8%. Improved report of total mesorectal excision (36.2 vs. 85.7), less emergency surgery (5.6% vs. 3.6%) and more lymph node examinations (median: 14.1 vs. 16) were observed (P < 0.001). However, centralizing highly complex cancers using different critical masses and healthcare frameworks prompted the need for rearticulating partnerships at a hospital, rather than disease, level. CONCLUSION: The centralization of rectal cancer surgery has been associated with better quality of care and conformity with clinical guidelines. However, a more integrated model of care delivery is needed to strengthen the centralization strategy.
BACKGROUND: The aim of centralizing rectal cancer surgery in Catalonia (Spain) was to improve the quality of patient care. We evaluated the impact of this policy by assessing patterns of care, comparing the clinical audits carried out and analysing the implications of the healthcare reform from an organizational perspective. METHODS: A mixed methods approach based on a convergent parallel design was used. Quality of rectal cancer care was assessed by means of a clinical audit for all patients receiving radical surgery for rectal cancer in two time periods (2005-2007 and 2011-2012). The qualitative study consisted of 18 semi-structured interviews in September-December 2014, with healthcare professionals, managers and experts. RESULTS: From 2005-2007 to 2011-2012, hospitals performing rectal cancer surgery decreased from 51 to 32. The proportion of patients undergoing surgery in high volume centres increased from 37.5% to 52.8%. Improved report of total mesorectal excision (36.2 vs. 85.7), less emergency surgery (5.6% vs. 3.6%) and more lymph node examinations (median: 14.1 vs. 16) were observed (P < 0.001). However, centralizing highly complex cancers using different critical masses and healthcare frameworks prompted the need for rearticulating partnerships at a hospital, rather than disease, level. CONCLUSION: The centralization of rectal cancer surgery has been associated with better quality of care and conformity with clinical guidelines. However, a more integrated model of care delivery is needed to strengthen the centralization strategy.
Authors: Dragomir Svetozarov Stoyanov; Nikolay Vladimirov Conev; Ivan Shterev Donev; Ivan Dimitrov Tonev; Teodorika Vitalinova Panayotova; Eleonora Georgieva Dimitrova-Gospodinova Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: A K Warps; M P M de Neree Tot Babberich; E Dekker; M W J M Wouters; J W T Dekker; R A E M Tollenaar; P J Tanis Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: M G Torras; E Canals; C Muñoz-Montplet; A Vidal; D Jurado; A Eraso; S Villà; M Caro; J Molero; M Macià; M Puigdemont; E González-Muñoz; A López; F Guedea; J M Borras Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: L Siragusa; B Sensi; D Vinci; M Franceschilli; C Pathirannehalage Don; G Bagaglini; V Bellato; M Campanelli; G S Sica Journal: Discov Oncol Date: 2021-04-12
Authors: Paula Manchon-Walsh; Luisa Aliste; Josep M Borràs; Cristina Coll-Ortega; Joan Casacuberta; Cristina Casanovas-Guitart; Montse Clèries; Sergi Cruz; Àlex Guarga; Anna Mompart; Antoni Planella; Alfonso Pozuelo; Isabel Ticó; Emili Vela; Joan Prades Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Charles H Norell; John Butler; Rhonda Farrell; Alon Altman; James Bentley; Citadel J Cabasag; Paul A Cohen; Scott Fegan; Michael Fung-Kee-Fung; Charlie Gourley; Neville F Hacker; Louise Hanna; Claus Kim Høgdall; Gunnar Kristensen; Janice Kwon; Orla McNally; Gregg Nelson; Andy Nordin; Dearbhaile O'Donnell; Tine Schnack; Peter H Sykes; Ewa Zotow; Samantha Harrison Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-08-11 Impact factor: 3.437