E Griesshammer1,2, S Wesselmann3, M W Beckmann4, C Dannecker5, U Wagner6, N T Sibert3, R Armbrust7, J Sehouli7. 1. Charité-University Hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany. griesshammer@krebsgesellschaft.de. 2. German Cancer Society e.V., 14057, Berlin, Germany. griesshammer@krebsgesellschaft.de. 3. German Cancer Society e.V., 14057, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Erlangen, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Augsburg, 86156, Augsburg, Germany. 6. Clinic for Gynecology, Gynecological Oncology and Gynecological Endocrinology, University Hospital of Giessen and Marburg (UKGM), Marburg, Germany. 7. Department of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Charité-University Hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Based on the example of Gynaecological Cancer Centres (GCCs) certified by the German Cancer Society, this study evaluates the results of medical-guideline-derived quality indicators (QIs) for cervical cancer (CC) and ovarian cancer (OC), examines the development of indicator implementation over time as well as the status of guideline-compliant care and identifies improvement measures. METHODS: QI results for patients with CC and OC treated in GCCs between 2015 and 2019 are analysed. The median, overall proportion and standard deviation of each QI were calculated. Two-sided Cochran-Armitage tests were applied. RESULTS: QIs are divided into two categories: process-organization (PO-QIs) and treatment-procedures (TP-QIs), to allow a differentiated analysis for identifying improvement measures. PO-QIs that reflect the implementation of processes and structures show a high degree of application. PO-QIs have a tremendous influence on the quality of care and are easy to implement through SOPs. TP-QIs report on treatments that are performed in the GCC. TP-QIs that report on systemic therapies reach a plateau where the guideline is known, but patient-related-factors meaningfully prevent further increase. TP-QIs that report on surgical interventions fluctuate. The most relevant factors are practitioners' personal skills. Besides the discussion of results amongst peers during the audit, improvement measures could include surgical courses or coaching. CONCLUSION: The analysis shows that a combination of different measures is necessary to anchor quality sustainably in health care and thus improve it.
PURPOSE: Based on the example of Gynaecological Cancer Centres (GCCs) certified by the German Cancer Society, this study evaluates the results of medical-guideline-derived quality indicators (QIs) for cervical cancer (CC) and ovarian cancer (OC), examines the development of indicator implementation over time as well as the status of guideline-compliant care and identifies improvement measures. METHODS: QI results for patients with CC and OC treated in GCCs between 2015 and 2019 are analysed. The median, overall proportion and standard deviation of each QI were calculated. Two-sided Cochran-Armitage tests were applied. RESULTS: QIs are divided into two categories: process-organization (PO-QIs) and treatment-procedures (TP-QIs), to allow a differentiated analysis for identifying improvement measures. PO-QIs that reflect the implementation of processes and structures show a high degree of application. PO-QIs have a tremendous influence on the quality of care and are easy to implement through SOPs. TP-QIs report on treatments that are performed in the GCC. TP-QIs that report on systemic therapies reach a plateau where the guideline is known, but patient-related-factors meaningfully prevent further increase. TP-QIs that report on surgical interventions fluctuate. The most relevant factors are practitioners' personal skills. Besides the discussion of results amongst peers during the audit, improvement measures could include surgical courses or coaching. CONCLUSION: The analysis shows that a combination of different measures is necessary to anchor quality sustainably in health care and thus improve it.
Authors: Robert E Bristow; Marianna L Zahurak; Teresa P Diaz-Montes; Robert L Giuntoli; Deborah K Armstrong Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-09-18 Impact factor: 5.482
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