Trends in overall survival and treatment patterns in two large population-based cohorts of patients with breast and colorectal cancer

Previous studies showed substantial improvement of survival rates in patients with cancer in the last two decades. However, lower survival rates have been reported for older patients compared to younger patients. In this population-based study, we analyzed treatment patterns and the survival of patients with breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients with stages I- III BC and CRC and diagnosed between 2003 and 2012 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Trends in treatment modalities were evaluated with the Cochran-Armitage trend test. Trends in five-year overall survival were calculated with the Cox hazard regression model. The Ederer II method was used to calculate the five-year relative survival. The relative excess risk of death (RER) was estimated using a multivariate generalized linear model. During the study period, 98% of BC patients aged <75 years underwent surgery, whereas for patients ≥75 years, rates were 79.3% in 2003 and 66.7% in 2012 (p < 0.001). Most CRC patients underwent surgery irrespective of age or time period, although patients with rectal cancer aged ≥75 years received less surgery or radiotherapy over the entire study period than younger patients. The administration of adjuvant chemotherapy increased over time for CRC and BC patients, except for BC patients aged ≥75 years. The five-year relative survival improved only in younger BC patients (adjusted RER 0.95-0.96 per year), and was lower for older BC patients (adjusted RER 1.00, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.98- 1.02, and RER 1.00; 95% CI 0.98-1.01 per year for 65-74 years and ≤75 years, respectively). For CRC patients, the five-year relative survival improved over time for all ages (adjusted RER on average was 0.95 per year). In conclusion, th

Using quality indicators to improve hospital care:A review of the literature

Purpose To review the literature concerning strategies for implementing quality indicators in hospital care, and their effectiveness in improving the quality of care. Data sources A systematic literature study was carried out using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library (January 1994 to January 2008). Study selection Hospital-based trials studying the effects of using quality indicators as a tool to improve quality of care. Data extraction Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, and extracted information from the studies included regarding the health care setting, type of implementation strategy and their effectiveness as a tool to improve quality of hospital care. Results A total of 21 studies were included. The most frequently used implementation strategies were audit and feedback. The majority of these studies focused on care processes rather than patient outcomes. Six studies evaluated the effects of the implementation of quality indicators on patient outcomes. In four studies, quality indicator implementation was found to be ineffective, in one partially effective and in one it was found to be effective. Twenty studies focused on care processes, and most reported significant improvement with respect to part of the measured process indicators. The implementation of quality indicators in hospitals is most effective if feedback reports are given in combination with an educational implementation strategy and/or the development of a quality improvement plan. Conclusion Effective strategies to implement quality indicators in daily practice in order to improve hospital care do exist, but there is considerable variation in the methods used and the level of change achieved. Feedback reports combined with another implementation strategy seem to be most effective