19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Benchmarking the quality of breast cancer care in a nationwide voluntary system: the first five-year results (2003–2007) from Germany as a proof of concept

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The main study objectives were: to establish a nationwide voluntary collaborative network of breast centres with independent data analysis; to define suitable quality indicators (QIs) for benchmarking the quality of breast cancer (BC) care; to demonstrate existing differences in BC care quality; and to show that BC care quality improved with benchmarking from 2003 to 2007.

          Methods

          BC centres participated voluntarily in a scientific benchmarking procedure. A generic XML-based data set was developed and used for data collection. Nine guideline-based quality targets serving as rate-based QIs were initially defined, reviewed annually and modified or expanded accordingly. QI changes over time were analysed descriptively.

          Results

          During 2003–2007, respective increases in participating breast centres and postoperatively confirmed BCs were from 59 to 220 and from 5,994 to 31,656 (> 60% of new BCs/year in Germany). Starting from 9 process QIs, 12 QIs were developed by 2007 as surrogates for long-term outcome. Results for most QIs increased. From 2003 to 2007, the most notable increases seen were for preoperative histological confirmation of diagnosis (58% (in 2003) to 88% (in 2007)), appropriate endocrine therapy in hormone receptor-positive patients (27 to 93%), appropriate radiotherapy after breast-conserving therapy (20 to 79%) and appropriate radiotherapy after mastectomy (8 to 65%).

          Conclusion

          Nationwide external benchmarking of BC care is feasible and successful. The benchmarking system described allows both comparisons among participating institutions as well as the tracking of changes in average quality of care over time for the network as a whole. Marked QI increases indicate improved quality of BC care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Can health care quality indicators be transferred between countries?

          To evaluate the transferability of primary care quality indicators by comparing indicators for common clinical problems developed using the same method in the UK and the USA. Quality indicators developed in the USA for a range of common conditions using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method were applied to 19 common primary care conditions in the UK. The US indicators for the selected conditions were used as a starting point, but the literature reviews were updated and panels of UK primary care practitioners were convened to develop quality indicators applicable to British general practice. Of 174 indicators covering 18 conditions in the US set for which a direct comparison could be made, 98 (56.3%) had indicators in the UK set which were exactly or nearly equivalent. Some of the differences may have related to differences in the process of developing the indicators, but many appeared to relate to differences in clinical practice or norms of professional behaviour in the two countries. There was a small but non-significant relationship between the strength of evidence for an indicator and the probability of it appearing in both sets of indicators. There are considerable benefits in using work from other settings in developing measures of quality of care. However, indicators cannot simply be transferred directly between countries without an intermediate process to allow for variation in professional culture or clinical practice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Hospital volume differences and five-year survival from breast cancer.

            The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of hospital volume on long-term survival for women with breast cancer. Survival analysis and proportional-hazard modeling were used to assess 5-year survival and risk of death, adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic variables. At 5 years, patients from very low-volume hospitals had a 60% greater risk of all-cause mortality than patients from high-volume hospitals. Hospital volume of breast cancer surgical cases has a strong positive effect on 5-year survival. Research is needed to identify whether processes of care, especially postsurgical adjuvant treatments, contribute to survival differences.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Investigating the correlation between hospital of primary treatment and the survival of women with breast cancer.

              To understand the relation between hospital of initial treatment and the survival of women with breast cancer, the authors investigated the characteristics of the treatment center that were related most to outcome. The authors selected women from 5 regions of Quebec, Canada, who were diagnosed with lymph node-negative breast cancer between 1988 and 1994. Data were collected by chart review, queries to physicians, and linkage with administrative data bases. Overall survival to the end of 1999 was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. The study population included 1727 women with a median follow-up of 6.8 years. The 7-year survival rate was 82% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 80-84%). Compared with women who were treated in centers with > or = 100 new cases per year, the hazard ratio (HR) of death from any cause was 1.80 (95%CI, 1.23-2.63), 1.44 (95%CI, 1.03-2.03), and 1.30 (95%CI, 0.96-1.76) among women who were treated in hospitals with < 25 new cases, 25-49 new cases, and 50-99 new cases per year after adjusting for case mix and characteristics of the attending physician. However, the significance of caseload disappeared after adjusting for the type of hospital. By contrast, women who were treated in centers with either on-site radiotherapy, research activity, or teaching status had significantly better outcomes, even after adjusting for caseload (HR, 0.68; 95%CI, 0.50-0.92). These associations were independent of primary treatment received, which was a strong determinant of outcome. Primary treatment of early-stage breast cancer in larger hospitals was associated with improved survival. This relation was mediated by factors related to proficiency of care, which tended to cluster within institutions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BioMed Central
                1471-2407
                2008
                2 December 2008
                : 8
                : 358
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
                [2 ]St. Elisabeth-Krankenhaus Köln-Hohenlind, Cologne, Germany
                [3 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
                [4 ]Brustzentrum Düsseldorf im Luisenkrankenhaus, Düsseldorf, Germany
                [5 ]Department of Radiooncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
                [6 ]For full list, see Acknowledgements
                Article
                1471-2407-8-358
                10.1186/1471-2407-8-358
                2647938
                19055735
                63950969-0bc7-4114-a24e-88d88b3187e3
                Copyright © 2008 Brucker et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 25 June 2008
                : 2 December 2008
                Categories
                Research Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article