The use of quality information by general practitioners: does it alter choices? A randomized clustered study

Background: Following the introduction of elements of managed competition in the Netherlands in 2006, General Practitioners (GPs) and patients were given the role to select treatment hospital using public quality information. In this study we investigate to what extent hospital preferences of GP's are affected by performance indicators on medical effectiveness and patient experiences. We selected three conditions: breast cancer, cataract surgery, and hip and knee replacement. Methods. After an inquiry 26 out of 226 GPs in the region signed up to participate in our study. After a 2:1 randomization, we analyzed the referral patterns in the region using three groups of GPs: GPs (n=17) who used the report cards and received personal clarification, GPs that signed up for the study but were assigned to the control group (n=9), and the GPs outside the study (n=200).We conducted a difference in differences analysis where the choice for a particular hospital was the dependent variable and time (2009 or 2010), the sum score of the CQI, the sum score of the PI's and dummy variables for the individual hospitals were used as independent variables. Results: The analysis of the conditions together and cataract surgery and hip and knee replacement separately, showed no significant relationships between the scores on the report cards and the referral patterns of the GPs. For breast cancer our analysis revealed that GPs in the intervention group refer 1.0% (p=0.01) more to hospitals that score one percent point better on the indicators for medical effectiveness. Conclusion: Our study provides empirical evidence that GP referral patterns were unaffected by the available quality information, except for the outcome indicators for breast cancer care that were presented. This finding was surprising since our study was designed to identify changes in hospital preference (1) amongst the most motivated GP's, (2) that received personal clarification of the performance indicators, and (3) selected indicators/conditions from a large set of indicators that they believed were most important. This finding may differ when quality information is based on outcome indicators with a clinically relevant difference, as shown by our indicators for breast cancer treatment. We believe that the current set of (largely process) hospital quality indicators do not serve the GP's information needs and consequently quality plays little role in the selection of hospitals for treatment. © 2013 Ikkersheim and Koolman; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Implementation of neuro-oncology service reconfiguration in accordance with NICE guidance provides enhanced clinical care for patients with glioblastoma multiforme.

BACKGROUND: Brain tumours account for <2% of all primary neoplasms but are responsible for 7% of the years of life lost from cancer before age 70 years. The latest survival trends for patients with CNS malignancies have remained largely static. The objective of this study was to evaluate the change in practice as a result of implementing the Improving Outcomes Guidance from the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). METHODS: Patients were identified from the local cancer registry and hospital databases. We compared time from diagnosis to treatment, proportion of patients discussed at multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, treatment received, length of inpatient stay and survival. Inpatient and imaging costs were also estimated. RESULTS: Service reconfiguration and implementation of NICE guidance resulted in significantly more patients being discussed by the MDT--increased from 66 to 87%, reduced emergency admission in favour of elective surgery, reduced median hospital stay from 8 to 4.5 days, increased use of post-operative MRI from 17 to 91% facilitating early discharge and treatment planning, and reduced cost of inpatient stay from £2096 in 2006 to £1316 in 2009. Patients treated with optimal surgery followed by radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide achieved outcomes comparable to those reported in clinical trials: median overall survival 18 months (2-year survival 35%). CONCLUSIONS: Advancing the management of neuro-oncology patients by moving from an emergency-based system of patient referral and management to a more planned elective outpatient-based pattern of care improves patient experience and has the potential to deliver better outcomes and research opportunities

Persistent inequalities in 90-day colon cancer mortality: an English cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Variation in colon cancer mortality occurring shortly after diagnosis is widely reported between socio-economic status (SES) groups: we investigated the role of different prognostic factors in explaining variation in 90-day mortality. METHODS: National cancer registry data were linked with national clinical audit data and Hospital Episode Statistics records for 69 769 adults diagnosed with colon cancer in England between January 2010 and March 2013. By gender, logistic regression was used to estimate the effects of SES, age and stage at diagnosis, comorbidity and surgical treatment on probability of death within 90 days from diagnosis. Multiple imputations accounted for missing stage. We predicted conditional probabilities by prognostic factor patterns and estimated the effect of SES (deprivation) from the difference between deprivation-specific average predicted probabilities. RESULTS: Ninety-day probability of death rose with increasing deprivation, even after accounting for the main prognostic factors. When setting the deprivation level to the least deprived group for all patients and keeping all other prognostic factors as observed, the differences between deprivation-specific averaged predicted probabilities of death were greatly reduced but persisted. Additional analysis suggested stage and treatment as potential contributors towards some of these inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: Further examination of delayed diagnosis, access to treatment and post-operative care by deprivation group may provide additional insights into understanding deprivation disparities in mortality

Variation in survival after surgery for peri-ampullary cancer in a regional cancer network

Background: Centralisation of specialist surgical services requires that patients are referred to a regional centre for surgery. This process may disadvantage patients who live far from the regional centre or are referred from other hospitals by making referral less likely and by delaying treatment, thereby allowing tumour progression. The aim of this study is to explore the outcome of surgery for peri-ampullary cancer (PC) with respect to referring hospital and travel distance for treatment within a network served by five hospitals. Methods: Review of a unit database was undertaken of patients undergoing surgery for PC between January 2006 and May 2014. Results: 394 patients were studied. Although both the median travel distance for patients from the five hospitals (10.8, 86, 78.8, 54.7 and 89.2 km) (p < 0.05), and the annual operation rate for PC (2.99, 3.29, 2.13, 3.32 and 3.07 per 100,000) (p = 0.044) were significantly different, no correlation was noted between patient travel distance and population operation rate at each hospital. No difference was noted between patients from each hospital in terms of resection completion rate or pathological stage of the resected tumours. The median survival after diagnosis for patients referred from different hospitals ranged from 1.2 to 1.7 years and regression analysis revealed that increased travel distance to the regional centre was associated with a small survival advantage. Conclusion: Although variation in the provision and outcome of surgery for PC between regional hospitals is noted, this is not adversely affected by geographical isolation from the regional centre

Advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma outcomes with transition from devolved to centralised care in a regional Cancer Centre

Background: Previous observations suggest suboptimal ‘real world’ survival outcomes for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We hypothesized that centralisation of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma management would improve chemotherapy treatment and survival from the disease. Methods: The data was prospectively collected on all cases of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma reviewed through Clatterbridge Cancer Centre according to two groups; 1 October 2009–31st Dec 2010 (devolved care) or 1 January 2013–31 March 2014 (centralised care). Analysis included treatment received, 30-day chemotherapy mortality rate and overall survival (OS). Results: More patients received chemotherapy with central care (67.0% (n=115) vs 43.0% (n=121); P=2.2 × 10−4) with no difference in 30-day mortality (20.8% vs 25%; P=0.573) but reduced time to commencement of chemotherapy (18 vs 28 days, P=1.0 × 10−3). More patients received second-line chemotherapy with central care (23.4% vs 1.9%, P=1.4 × 10−4), while OS was significantly increased with central care (median: Five vs three months, HR 0.785, P=0.045). Exploratory analysis suggested that it was those with a poorer performance status, elderly or with metastatic disease who benefited the most from transition to central care. Conclusions: A centralised clinic model for advanced pancreatic cancer management resulted in prompt, safe and higher use of chemotherapy compared with devolved care. This was associated with a modest survival benefit. Prospective studies are required to validate the findings reported and the basis for improved survival with centralised care