J Kranz1,2, R T Grundmann3, J A Steffens4. 1. Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, St.-Antonius Hospital gGmbH, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der RWTH Aachen, Dechant-Deckers-Str. 8, 52249, Eschweiler, Deutschland. Jennifer.kranz@sah-eschweiler.de. 2. Universitätsklinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Halle (Saale), Halle (Saale), Deutschland. Jennifer.kranz@sah-eschweiler.de. 3. Kreiskliniken Altötting-Burghausen, Burghausen, Deutschland. 4. Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, St.-Antonius Hospital gGmbH, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der RWTH Aachen, Dechant-Deckers-Str. 8, 52249, Eschweiler, Deutschland. joachim.steffens@sah-eschweiler.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An improved structural and process quality could be demonstrated 13 years after certification of the first German prostate cancer center. The question of optimization of the functional quality by establishing organ cancer centers arises. OBJECTIVE: A critical benefit-risk analysis of organ cancer centers was carried out to evaluate an improved quality of results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on published results from individual centers and the individual annual reports of the German Cancer Society (DKG), the data for evaluating the quality of results were checked. For the issuing of certificates, the focus is on quality indicators for oncological surgery. The functional quality of results is assessed exclusively by a questionnaire-based survey. RESULTS: An improvement in the quality of functional results after radical prostatectomy has not yet been demonstrated. The functional quality features of urinary continence and erectile function that are essential for the quality of life and patient satisfaction are only insufficiently assessed due to the lack of objective measuring instruments and are not relevant for certification. There is no reliable evidence for improved overall survival, reduction in tumor-specific mortality, and optimization of functional results in certified centers. CONCLUSION: The relationship between certification and excellence cannot be proven without individual consideration of a surgeon-specific pentafecta analysis. For this reason, certification-relevant surgeon-related quality assurance is recommended.
BACKGROUND: An improved structural and process quality could be demonstrated 13 years after certification of the first German prostate cancer center. The question of optimization of the functional quality by establishing organ cancer centers arises. OBJECTIVE: A critical benefit-risk analysis of organ cancer centers was carried out to evaluate an improved quality of results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on published results from individual centers and the individual annual reports of the German Cancer Society (DKG), the data for evaluating the quality of results were checked. For the issuing of certificates, the focus is on quality indicators for oncological surgery. The functional quality of results is assessed exclusively by a questionnaire-based survey. RESULTS: An improvement in the quality of functional results after radical prostatectomy has not yet been demonstrated. The functional quality features of urinary continence and erectile function that are essential for the quality of life and patient satisfaction are only insufficiently assessed due to the lack of objective measuring instruments and are not relevant for certification. There is no reliable evidence for improved overall survival, reduction in tumor-specific mortality, and optimization of functional results in certified centers. CONCLUSION: The relationship between certification and excellence cannot be proven without individual consideration of a surgeon-specific pentafecta analysis. For this reason, certification-relevant surgeon-related quality assurance is recommended.
Entities:
Keywords:
Certification-relevant quality indicators; Medical outcome; Organ cancer centres; Prostate cancer; Treatment strategy
Authors: Sinan Khadhouri; Catherine Miller; Sarah Fowler; Luke Hounsome; Alan McNeill; Jim Adshead; John S McGrath Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Sue M Evans; Jeremy L Millar; Caroline M Moore; John D Lewis; Hartwig Huland; Fanny Sampurno; Sarah E Connor; Paul Villanti; Mark S Litwin Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: J Stranne; E Axen; I Franck-Lissbrant; P Fransson; M Frånlund; J Hugosson; A Khatami; K Koss-Modig; P Lodding; M Nyberg; P Stattin; O Bratt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Martin Roessler; Jochen Schmitt; Christoph Bobeth; Michael Gerken; Kees Kleihues-van Tol; Christoph Reissfelder; Bettina M Rau; Marius Distler; Pompiliu Piso; Christian Günster; Monika Klinkhammer-Schalke; Olaf Schoffer; Veronika Bierbaum Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-06-07 Impact factor: 4.638