Pioneering Quality Assessment in European Cancer Centers: A Data Analysis of the Organization for European Cancer Institutes Accreditation and Designation Program

Mahasti Saghatchian, Frederique Thonon, Femke Boomsma, Henk Hummel, Bert Koot, Chris Harrison, Abinaya Rajan, Dominique de Valeriola, Renee Otter, Jose Laranja Pontes, Claudio Lombardo, Eoin McGrath, Ulrik Ringborg, Thomas Tursz, Willem H. van Harten

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

21 Citations (Scopus)
121 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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. Discussion: 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
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e342-e349
JournalJournal of Oncology Practice
Volume10
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Keywords

  • METIS-304640
  • IR-91530

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Pioneering Quality Assessment in European Cancer Centers: A Data Analysis of the Organization for European Cancer Institutes Accreditation and Designation Program'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this