Olaf Ortmann1,2, Ulrike Helbig3, Julie Torode4, Stefan Schreck5, Sakari Karjalainen6,7, Manola Bettio8, Ulrik Ringborg9,10, Monika Klinkhammer-Schalke11,12, Freddy Bray13. 1. German Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany. olaf.ortmann@klinik.uni-regensburg.de. 2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Center Regensburg, Landshuter Straße 65, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. olaf.ortmann@klinik.uni-regensburg.de. 3. German Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany. 4. Union for International Cancer Control (UICC), Geneva, Switzerland. 5. Health programme and chronic diseases Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg. 6. European Cancer Leagues, Brussels, Belgium. 7. Cancer Society Finland, Helsinki, Finland. 8. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy. 9. EUROCAN Platform, Stockholm, Sweden. 10. Cancer Center Karolinska, Stockholm, Sweden. 11. German Tumor Centres Work Group, Berlin, Germany. 12. Tumor Centre Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. 13. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs) often describe structural requirements for high quality cancer care. During the fourth European Roundtable Meeting (ERTM) participants shared learnings from their own national setting to formulate best practice in optimizing communication strategies between parties involved in clinical cancer registries, cancer centers and guideline groups. RESULTS: A decentralized model of data collection close to the patient and caregiver enhances timely completion and the quality of the data captured. Nevertheless, central coordination is necessary to define datasets, indicators, standard settings, education, training and quality control to maintain standards across the network. In particular, interaction of parties in cancer care network has to be established and maintained on a regular basis. CONCLUSION: After establishing the structural requirements of cancer care networks, communication between the different components and parties is required to analyze outcome data, provide regular reporting to all and develop strategies for continuous improvement of quality across the network.
PURPOSE: National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs) often describe structural requirements for high quality cancer care. During the fourth European Roundtable Meeting (ERTM) participants shared learnings from their own national setting to formulate best practice in optimizing communication strategies between parties involved in clinical cancer registries, cancer centers and guideline groups. RESULTS: A decentralized model of data collection close to the patient and caregiver enhances timely completion and the quality of the data captured. Nevertheless, central coordination is necessary to define datasets, indicators, standard settings, education, training and quality control to maintain standards across the network. In particular, interaction of parties in cancer care network has to be established and maintained on a regular basis. CONCLUSION: After establishing the structural requirements of cancer care networks, communication between the different components and parties is required to analyze outcome data, provide regular reporting to all and develop strategies for continuous improvement of quality across the network.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer center; Cancer registry; Guidelines; Quality of cancer care