Cargando…

Regional variation in breast cancer treatment in the Netherlands and the role of external peer review: a cohort study comprising 63,516 women

BACKGROUND: Treatment variation is an important issue in health care provision. An external peer review programme for multidisciplinary cancer care was introduced in 1994 in the Netherlands to improve the multidisciplinary organisation of cancer care in hospitals. So far the clinical impact of exter...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kilsdonk, Melvin J, van Dijk, Boukje AC, Otter, Renee, van Harten, Wim H, Siesling, Sabine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147167/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25129126
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-14-596
_version_ 1782332389314265088
author Kilsdonk, Melvin J
van Dijk, Boukje AC
Otter, Renee
van Harten, Wim H
Siesling, Sabine
author_facet Kilsdonk, Melvin J
van Dijk, Boukje AC
Otter, Renee
van Harten, Wim H
Siesling, Sabine
author_sort Kilsdonk, Melvin J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Treatment variation is an important issue in health care provision. An external peer review programme for multidisciplinary cancer care was introduced in 1994 in the Netherlands to improve the multidisciplinary organisation of cancer care in hospitals. So far the clinical impact of external quality assessment programmes such as external peer review and accreditation remains unclear. Our objective was to examine the degree of variation in treatment patterns and the possible effect of external peer review for multidisciplinary cancer care for breast cancer patients. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer were included from 23 hospitals from two ‘intervention regions’ with the longest experience with the programme and 7 hospitals that never participated (control group). Data on tumour and treatment characteristics were retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Treatment modalities investigated were: the completeness of breast conserving therapy, introduction of the sentinel node biopsy, radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), adjuvant radiotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer (T3/M0 or any T,N2-3/M0), adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer (T1-2/N+/M0) and neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for T4/M0 breast cancer. Hospitals from the two intervention regions were dichotomised based on their implementation proportion (IP) of recommendations from the final reports of each peer review (high IP vs. low IP). This was regarded as a measure of how well a hospital participated in the programme. RESULTS: 63,516 female breast cancer patients were included (1990-2010). Variation in treatment patterns was observed between the intervention regions and control group. Multidisciplinary treatment patterns were not consistently better for patients from hospitals with a high IP. CONCLUSIONS: There is no relationship between the external peer review programme for multidisciplinary cancer care and multidisciplinary treatment patterns for breast cancer patients. Regional factors seem to exert a stronger effect on treatment patterns than hospital participation in external peer review. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2407-14-596) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4147167
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41471672014-08-29 Regional variation in breast cancer treatment in the Netherlands and the role of external peer review: a cohort study comprising 63,516 women Kilsdonk, Melvin J van Dijk, Boukje AC Otter, Renee van Harten, Wim H Siesling, Sabine BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: Treatment variation is an important issue in health care provision. An external peer review programme for multidisciplinary cancer care was introduced in 1994 in the Netherlands to improve the multidisciplinary organisation of cancer care in hospitals. So far the clinical impact of external quality assessment programmes such as external peer review and accreditation remains unclear. Our objective was to examine the degree of variation in treatment patterns and the possible effect of external peer review for multidisciplinary cancer care for breast cancer patients. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer were included from 23 hospitals from two ‘intervention regions’ with the longest experience with the programme and 7 hospitals that never participated (control group). Data on tumour and treatment characteristics were retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Treatment modalities investigated were: the completeness of breast conserving therapy, introduction of the sentinel node biopsy, radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), adjuvant radiotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer (T3/M0 or any T,N2-3/M0), adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer (T1-2/N+/M0) and neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for T4/M0 breast cancer. Hospitals from the two intervention regions were dichotomised based on their implementation proportion (IP) of recommendations from the final reports of each peer review (high IP vs. low IP). This was regarded as a measure of how well a hospital participated in the programme. RESULTS: 63,516 female breast cancer patients were included (1990-2010). Variation in treatment patterns was observed between the intervention regions and control group. Multidisciplinary treatment patterns were not consistently better for patients from hospitals with a high IP. CONCLUSIONS: There is no relationship between the external peer review programme for multidisciplinary cancer care and multidisciplinary treatment patterns for breast cancer patients. Regional factors seem to exert a stronger effect on treatment patterns than hospital participation in external peer review. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2407-14-596) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-08-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4147167/ /pubmed/25129126 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-14-596 Text en © Kilsdonk et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to 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 credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kilsdonk, Melvin J
van Dijk, Boukje AC
Otter, Renee
van Harten, Wim H
Siesling, Sabine
Regional variation in breast cancer treatment in the Netherlands and the role of external peer review: a cohort study comprising 63,516 women
title Regional variation in breast cancer treatment in the Netherlands and the role of external peer review: a cohort study comprising 63,516 women
title_full Regional variation in breast cancer treatment in the Netherlands and the role of external peer review: a cohort study comprising 63,516 women
title_fullStr Regional variation in breast cancer treatment in the Netherlands and the role of external peer review: a cohort study comprising 63,516 women
title_full_unstemmed Regional variation in breast cancer treatment in the Netherlands and the role of external peer review: a cohort study comprising 63,516 women
title_short Regional variation in breast cancer treatment in the Netherlands and the role of external peer review: a cohort study comprising 63,516 women
title_sort regional variation in breast cancer treatment in the netherlands and the role of external peer review: a cohort study comprising 63,516 women
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147167/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25129126
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-14-596
work_keys_str_mv AT kilsdonkmelvinj regionalvariationinbreastcancertreatmentinthenetherlandsandtheroleofexternalpeerreviewacohortstudycomprising63516women
AT vandijkboukjeac regionalvariationinbreastcancertreatmentinthenetherlandsandtheroleofexternalpeerreviewacohortstudycomprising63516women
AT otterrenee regionalvariationinbreastcancertreatmentinthenetherlandsandtheroleofexternalpeerreviewacohortstudycomprising63516women
AT vanhartenwimh regionalvariationinbreastcancertreatmentinthenetherlandsandtheroleofexternalpeerreviewacohortstudycomprising63516women
AT sieslingsabine regionalvariationinbreastcancertreatmentinthenetherlandsandtheroleofexternalpeerreviewacohortstudycomprising63516women