Toward Optimizing Risk Adjustment in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit

Background: To compare hospital outcomes of aortic aneurysm surgery, casemix correction for preoperative variables is essential. Most of these variables can be deduced from mortality risk prediction models. Our aim was to identify the optimal set of preoperative variables associated with mortality to establish a relevant and efficient casemix model.Methods: All patients prospectively registered between 2013 and 2016 in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) were included for the analysis. After multiple imputation for missing variables, predictors for mortality following univariable logistic regression were analyzed in a manual backward multivariable logistic regression model and compared with three standard mortality risk prediction models: Glasgow Aneurysm Score (GAS, mainly clinical parameters), Vascular Biochemical and Haematological Outcome Model (VBHOM, mainly laboratory parameters), and Dutch Aneurysm Score (DAS, both clinical and laboratory parameters). Discrimination and calibration were tested and considered good with a C-statistic &gt; 0.8 and Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) P &gt; 0.05. Results: There were 12,401 patients: 9,537 (76.9%) elective patients (EAAA), 913 (7.4%) acute symptomatic patients (SAAA), and 1,951 (15.7%) patients with acute rupture (RAAA). Overall postoperative mortality was 6.5%; 1.8% after EAAA surgery, 6.6% after SAAA, and 29.6% after RAAA surgery. The optimal set of independent variables associated with mortality was a mix of clinical and laboratory parameters: gender, age, pulmonary comorbidity, operative setting, creatinine, aneurysm size, hemoglobin, Glasgow coma scale, electrocardiography, and systolic blood pressure (C-statistic 0.871). External validation overall of VBHOM, DAS, and GAS revealed C-statistics of 0.836, 0.782, and 0.761, with an H-L of 0.028, 0.00, and 0.128, respectively.Conclusions: The optimal set of variables for casemix correction in the DSAA comprises both clinical and laboratory parameters, which can be collected easily from electronic patient files and will lead to an efficient casemix model.</p

Development of an instrument to analyze organizational characteristics in multidisciplinary care pathways:the case of colorectal cancer

Background: To analyze the organization of multidisciplinary care pathways such as colorectal cancer care, an instrument was developed based on a recently published framework that was earlier used in analyzing (monodisciplinary) specialist cataract care from a lean perspective. Methods: The instrument was constructed using semi-structured interviews and direct observation of the colorectal care process based on a Rapid Plant Assessment. Six lean aspects that were earlier established that highly impact process design, were investigated: operational focus, autonomous work cell, physical lay-out of resources, multi-skilled team, pull planning and non-value adding activities. To test reliability, clarity and face validity of the instrument, a pilot study was performed in eight Dutch hospitals.ResultsIn the pilot it proved feasible to apply the instrument and generate the intended information. The instrument consisted of 83 quantitative and 24 qualitative items. Examples of results show differences in operational focus, number of patient visits needed for diagnosis, numbers of staff involved with treatment, the implementation of protocols and utilization of one-stop-shops. Identification of waste and non-value adding activities may need further attention. Based on feedback from involved clinicians the face validity was acceptable and the results provided useful feedback- and benchmark data. The instrument proved to be reliable and valid for broader implementation in Dutch health care. The limited number of cases made statistical analysis not possible and further validation studies may shed better light on variation. Conclusions: This paper demonstrates the use of an instrument to analyze organizational characteristics in colorectal cancer care from a lean perspective. Wider use might help to identify best organizational practices for colorectal surgery. In larger series the instrument might be used for in-depth research into the relation between organization and patient outcomes.Although we found no reason to adapt the underlying framework, recommendations were made for further development to enable use in different tumor- and treatment modalities and in larger (international) samples that allow for more advanced statistical analysis. Waste from defective care or from wasted human potential will need further elaboration of the instrumen

Quality Improvement of Pancreatic Surgery by Centralization in the Western Part of the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: Centralization of pancreatic surgery in high-volume hospitals is under debate in many countries. In the western part of the Netherlands, the professional network of surgical oncologists agreed to centralize all pancreatic surgery from 2006 in two high-volume hospitals. Our aim is to evaluate whether centralization of pancreatic surgery has improved clinical outcomes and has changed referral patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre West (CCCW) of all 249 patients who had a resection for suspected pancreatic cancer between 1996 and 2008 in the western part of the Netherlands were analyzed. Multivariable modeling was used to evaluate survival for 3 time periods; 1996–2000, 2001–2005 (introduction of quality standards), and 2006–2008 (after centralization). In addition, the differences in referral pattern were analyzed. RESULTS: From 2006, all pancreatic surgery was centralized in 2 hospitals. The 2-year survival rate increased after centralization from 39% to 55% (P = .09) for all patients who had a pancreatic resection for pancreatic cancer. After adjustment for age, tumor location, stage, histology, and adjuvant treatment, the latter period was significantly associated with improved survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.34–0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Centralization of pancreatic surgery was successful and has resulted in improved clinical outcomes in the western part of the Netherlands, demonstrating the effectiveness of centralization

What drives centralisation in cancer care?

Background: To improve quality of care, centralisation of cancer services in high-volume centres has been stimulated. Studies linking specialisation and high (surgical) volumes to better outcomes already appeared in the 1990’s. However, actual centralisation was a difficult process in many countries. In this study, factors influencing the centralisation of cancer services in the Netherlands were determined. Material and methods: Centralisation patterns were studied for three types of cancer that are known to benefit from high surgical caseloads: oesophagus-, pancreas- and bladder cancer. The Netherlands Cancer Registry provided data on tumour and treatment characteristics from 2000–2013 for respectively 8037, 4747 and 6362 patients receiving surgery. By plotting timelines of centralisation of cancer surgery, relations with the appearance of (inter)national scientific evidence, actions of medical specialist societies, specific regulation and other important factors on the degree of centralisation were ascertained. Results: For oesophagus and pancreas cancer, a gradual increase in centralisation of surgery is seen from 2005 and 2006 onwards following (inter)national scientific evidence. Centralisation steps for bladder cancer surgery can be seen in 2010 and 2013 anticipating on the publication of norms by the professional society. The most influential stimulus seems to have been regulations on minimum volumes. Conclusion: Scientific evidence on the relationship between volume and outcome lead to the start of centralisation of surgical cancer care in the Netherlands. Once a body of evidence has been established on organisational change that influences professional practice, in addition some form of regulation is needed to ensure widespread implementation

Level of Digitization in Dutch Hospitals and the Lengths of Stay of Patients with Colorectal Cancer

A substantial amount of research has been published on the association between the use of electronic medical records (EMRs) and quality outcomes in U.S. hospitals, while limited research has focused on the Western European experience. The purpose of this study is to explore the association between the use of EMR technologies in Dutch hospitals and length of stay after colorectal cancer surgery. Two data sets were leveraged for this study; the HIMSS Analytics Electronic Medical Record AdoptionModel (EMRAMSM) and the Dutch surgical colorectal audit (DSCA). The HIMSS Analytics EMRAM score was used to define a Dutch hospital's electronic medical records (EMR) capabilities while the DSCA was used to profile colorectal surgery quality outcomes (specifically total length of stay (LOS) in the hospital and the LOS in ICU). A total of 73 hospitals with a valid EMRAM score and associated DSCA patients (n = 30.358) during the study period (2012-2014) were included in the comparative set. A multivariate regression method was used to test differences adjusted for case mix, year of surgery, surgical technique and for complications, as well as stratifying for academic affiliated hospitals and general hospitals. A significant negative association was observed to exist between the total LOS (relative median LOS 0,974, CI 95% 0.959-0,989) of patients treated in advanced EMR hospitals (high EMRAM score cohort) versus patients treated at less advanced EMR care settings, once the data was adjusted for the case mix, year of surgery and type of surgery (laparoscopy or laparotomy). Adjusting for complications in a subgroup of general hospitals (n = 39) yielded essentially the same results (relative median LOS 0,934, CI 95% 0,9150,954). No consistent significant associations were found with respect to LOS on the ICU. The findings of this study suggest advanced EMR capabilities support a healthcare provider's efforts to achieve desired quality outcomes and efficiency in Western European hospitals

Chest Wall Resection for Adult Soft Tissue Sarcomas and Chondrosarcomas: Analysis of Prognostic Factors

Background: Wide resection with tumor-free margins is necessary in soft-tissue sarcomas to minimize local recurrence and to contribute to long-term survival. Information about treatment outcome and prognostic factors of adult sarcoma requiring chest wall resection (CWR) is limited. Methods: Sixty consecutive patients were retrospectively studied for overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Twenty-one prognostic factors regarding survival were analyzed by univariate analysis using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. Results: With a median survival of 2.5 years, the OS was 46% (33%) at 5 (10) years. The LRFS was 64% at 5 and 10 years, and the DFS was 30% and 25% at 5 and 10 years. At the end of the study period, 26 patients (43%) were alive, of which 20 patients (33%) had no evidence of disease and 40 patients (67%) had no chest wall recurrence. In the group of 9 patients with a radiation-induced soft-tissue sarcoma, the median survival was 8 months. Favorable outcome in univariate analysis in OS and LRFS applied for the low-grade sarcoma, bone invasion, and sternal resection. For OS only, age below 60 years and no radiotherapy were significant factors contributing to an improved survival. CWR was considered radical (R0) at the pathological examination in 43 patients. There were 52 patients with an uneventful recovery. There was one postoperative death. Conclusions: CWR for soft-tissue sarcoma is a safe surgical procedure with low morbidity and a mortality rate of less than 1%. With proper patient selection acceptable survival can be reached in a large group of patients. Care must be given to patients with radiation-induced soft-tissue sarcoma who have a significantly worse prognosis

ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care : Melanoma

Background ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are explanations and descriptions of challenges, organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to patients who have a specific type of cancer. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care. ERQCC papers give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of the elements needed in any healthcare system to provide high quality of care throughout the patient journey. References are made to clinical guidelines and other resources where appropriate, and the focus is on care in Europe. Melanoma: essential requirements for quality care: Melanoma, the most-deadly skin cancer, is rising in incidence among fair-skinned people in Europe. Increasing complexity of care for advanced disease in clinical areas such as staging and new therapies requires attention to a number of challenges and inequalities in a diverse patient group. Care for advanced melanoma must only be carried out in, or in collaboration with, specialist melanoma centres which have both a core multidisciplinary team and an extended team of allied professionals, and which are subject to quality and audit procedures. Access to such units is far from universal in all European countries. It is essential that, to meet European aspirations for high-quality comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations implement the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis to treatment and follow-up, to improve survival and quality of life for patients. Conclusion: Taken together, the information presented in this paper provides a comprehensive description of the essential requirements for establishing a high-quality service for melanoma. The ERQCC expert group is aware that it is not possible to propose a 'one size fits all' system for all countries, but urges that access to multidisciplinary teams and specialised treatments is guaranteed to all patients with melanoma.Peer reviewe

Population-based study on practice variation regarding preoperative systemic chemotherapy in patients with colorectal liver metastases and impact on short-term outcomes

Introduction: Definitions regarding resectability and hence indications for preoperative chemotherapy vary. Use of preoperative chemotherapy may influence postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to assess the variation in use of preoperative chemotherapy for CRLM and related postoperative outcomes in the Netherlands. Materials and methods: All patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2018 were included from a national database. Case-mix factors contributing to the use of preoperative chemotherapy, hospital variation and postoperative outcomes were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Postoperative outcomes were postoperative complicated course (PCC), 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality. Results: In total, 4469 patients were included of whom 1314 patients received preoperative chemotherapy and 3155 patients did not. Patients receiving chemotherapy were significantly younger (mean age (+SD) 66.3 (10.4) versus 63.2 (10.2) p < 0.001) and had less comorbidity (Charlson scores 2+ (24% versus 29%, p = 0.010). Unadjusted hospital variation concerning administration of preoperative chemotherapy ranged between 2% and 55%. After adjusting for case-mix factors, three hospitals administered significantly more preoperative chemotherapy than expected and six administered significantly less preoperative chemotherapy than expected. PCC was 12.1%, 30-day morbidity was 8.8% and 30-day mortality was 1.5%. No association between preoperative chemotherapy and PCC (OR 1.24, 0.98–1.55, p = 0.065), 30-day morbidity (OR 1.05, 0.81–1.39, p = 0.703) or with 30-day mortality (OR 1.22, 0.75–2.09, p = 0.467) was found. Conclusion: Significant hospital variation in the use of preoperative chemotherapy for CRLM was present in the Netherlands. No association between postoperative outcomes and use of preoperative chemotherapy was found