JOURNAL ARTICLE

Pioneering quality assessment in European cancer centers: a data analysis of the organization for European cancer institutes accreditation and designation program

Mahasti Saghatchian, Frédérique Thonon, Femke Boomsma, Henk Hummel, Bert Koot, Chris Harrison, Abinaya Rajan, Dominique de Valeriola, Renée Otter, José Laranja Pontes, Claudio Lombardo, Eoin McGrath, Ulrik Ringborg, Thomas Tursz, Wim van Harten
Journal of Oncology Practice 2014, 10 (5): e342-9
25118210

PURPOSE: In order to improve the quality of care in Cancer Centers (CC) and designate Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs), the Organization for European Cancer Institutes (OECI) launched an Accreditation and Designation (A&D) program. The program facilitates the collection of defined data and the assessment of cancer center quality. This study analyzes the results of the first 10 European centers that entered the program.

METHODS: The assessment included 927 items divided across qualitative and quantitative questionnaires. Data collected during self-assessment and peer-review from the 10 first participating centers were combined in a database for comparative analysis using simple statistics. Quantitative and qualitative results were validated by auditors during the peer review visits.

RESULTS: Volumes of various functions and activities dedicated to care, research, and education varied widely among centers. There were no significant differences in resources for radiology, radiotherapy, pathologic diagnostic, and surgery. Differences were observed in the use of clinical pathways but not for the practices of holding multidisciplinary team meetings and conforming to guidelines. Regarding human resources, main differences were in the composition and number of supportive care and research staff. All 10 centers applied as CCCs; five obtained the label, and five were designated as CCs.

CONCLUSION: The OECI A&D program allows comparisons between centers with regard to management, research, care, education, and designation as CCs or CCCs. Through the peer review system, recommendations for improvements are given. Assessing the added value of the program, as well as research and patient treatment outcomes, is the next step.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
25118210
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"