Single institution followed by national implementation of systematic surgical quality control and feedback for radical prostatectomy: a 20-year journey

A Systematic Review on the Impact of Quality Assurance Programs on Outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The implementation of quality assurance programs (QAPs) within urological practice has gained prominence; yet, their impact on outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) remains uncertain. This paper aims to systematically review the current literature regarding the implementation of QAPs and their impact on outcomes after robot-assisted RP, laparoscopic RP, and open prostatectomy, collectively referred to as RP.

METHODS

A systematic Embase, Medline (OvidSP), and Scopus search was conducted, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) process, on January 12, 2024. Studies were identified and included if these covered implementation of QAPs and their impact on outcomes after RP. QAPs were defined as any intervention seeking quality improvement through critically reviewing, analyzing, and discussing outcomes. Included studies were assessed critically using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, with results summarized narratively.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Ten included studies revealed two methodological strategies: periodic performance feedback and surgical video assessments. Despite conceptual variability, QAPs improved outcomes consistently (ie, surgical margins, urine continence, erectile function, and hospital readmissions). Of the two strategies, video assessments better identified suboptimal surgical practice and technical errors. Although the extent of quality improvements did not appear to correlate with the frequency of QAPs, there was an apparent correlation with whether or not outcomes were evaluated collectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Current findings suggest that QAPs have a positive impact on outcomes after RP. Caution in interpretation due to limited data is advised. More extensive research is required to explore how conceptual differences impact the extent of quality improvements.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this paper, we review the available scientific literature regarding the implementation of quality assurance programs and their impact on outcomes after radical prostatectomy. The included studies offered substantial support for the implementation of quality assurance programs as an incentive to improve the quality of care continuously.

The use of patient-reported outcome and experience measures for health policy purposes: A scoping review in oncology

The systematic use of patient-reported measures (PRMs) [i.e., patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs)] is advocated as an effective way to improve care practices. However, whether PRMs can lead to the performance assessment of healthcare organisations (HCOs) through valid quality indicators (QIs) for national purposes (i.e., public reporting and paying for performance) is open to debate. This study undertakes a scoping review to examine the use of PRMs as QIs for health policy purposes and to identify the challenges faced in the emblematic case of oncology. According to PRISMA guidelines, published papers, websites and reports published by national and international initiatives were analysed using five online databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, JSTOR and Google Advanced Search), and then studied using the same keywords. We selected 61 articles and 19 websites/reports and identified 29 PREMs and 48 PROMs from 14 countries and two international initiatives that routinely used them as QIs for HCOs' comparisons. Four types of barriers to this specific use were identified relating to the definition of a standard set, scientific soundness, data collection, and the actionability of such measures. Despite current developments, different barriers still must be overcome before PRMs can be used for health policy purposes in oncology. Future research is needed to ensure that valid QIs related to PRMs are applied at a national level.

Assessment of Quality of Life in Rectal Cancer with Organ-Preservation Treatment: Are We There yet?

Rectal cancer is a common cancer and shows an increased incidence with older age. Although the gold standard treatment is surgical excision, minimally invasive approaches are increasingly used and organ preservation is becoming a reasonable approach. The conservative treatment approach includes local excision, external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. However, these all carry a risk of side-effects. It is crucial to provide patients with information to quantify the improvement or detriment in quality of life with their cancer treatment. This can only be done with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as tools within current and future trials. Colorectal cancer has numerous publications with specific PROMs. However, PROMs reporting in rectal cancer is more sparse; PROMs are generally extrapolated from colorectal cancer. Rectal PROMs trials hold small population samples and PROMs as an end point is scarce. We present a review of recent literature based on the PROMs reporting of quality of life for rectal cancer patients and introduce the CITRuS trial as an innovative feasibility study related to electronic PROMs data collection.

Development of binational radiation therapy quality indicator reports for prostate cancer treatment using registry data

INTRODUCTION

Quality indicators (QIs) are metrics which seek to allow comparison of clinicians' and institutes' practice to best evidence-based practice. The Australia and New Zealand Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (PCOR-ANZ) is a bi-national clinical quality registry with coverage estimated to be over 60% of the men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. We outline the production and ambition of institute-level QI reports to benchmark performance for radiation therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer.

METHODS

An expert clinician panel was assembled to create a list of candidate QIs based on a comprehensive literature review, and on modified Delphi-method and expert-consensus voting. A separate implementation group-including, clinicians, epidemiologists, data managers and data scientists-employed an evidence- and consensus- based approach to generate an effective QI report designed for automated production and regular distribution to participating institutes. Feedback from the recipient clinicians was sought to enable refinement of these reports.

RESULTS

Seven QIs, including three related to post-treatment symptoms, were deemed feasible to analyse with the currently available data. Utilising an existing report template employed for benchmarking of surgical indicators, a novel radiation therapy report was generated using registry data in a secure analytical environment. The first, beta version of these reports have been produced and confidentially distributed. It is planned to automatically generate these reports biannually and iteratively refine them based on the clinician input.

CONCLUSION

QI reports for the treatment of prostate cancer by radiation oncologists have been produced using data from Australia and New Zealand patients. These are being disseminated to institutes on a six-monthly basis allowing comparisons to de-identified peers. The reports aim to facilitate improving patient outcomes, deepen engagement with the radiation oncology community and increase the breadth of PCOR-ANZ coverage. Additional QIs will be included in future iterations of these reports as data matures.

Effect of Quality Control Program in Surgical Management of Early Cervical Cancer

BACKGROUND

Regular assessments of clinical performance in gynecologic cancer surgery is important for the safety of patients. We evaluated the effects of quality control (QC) program on the treatment pattern and clinical outcomes of early cervical cancer.

METHODS

Medical records of cervical cancer patients who received operation in our institution from January 2007 to December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Cases were divided into 2 groups, before and after the initiation of QC program, group 1 (2007-2013) and group 2 (2014-2018), based on the operation date. Two groups were compared in clinicopathologic variables, surgical methods, operative details, adjuvant treatments, recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 305 cervical cancer patients were included in the analysis, 210 in group 1 and 95 in group 2. In group 2, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was more frequently performed (60.0% vs. 76.8%, P = 0.004), especially in earlier stages (stage IA, 72.6% vs. 100.0%; stage IB, 52.2% vs. 69.5%). However, the median tumor size treated by MIS was decreased in stage IB (20 mm vs. 17 mm, P = 0.015). Frequency of adjuvant treatment was also reduced in stage IB (56.5% vs. 37.3%, P = 0.016). Recurrence within 3 years, 3-year disease free survival and overall survival did not show significant difference; however, 3-year recurrence after MIS was significantly reduced in stage IB.

CONCLUSION

QC program enforced stricter patient selection criteria for MIS and positively affected clinical outcomes in cervical cancer patients who underwent surgery. Systemic monitoring should be considered for patient safety.

How reliable are surgeon-reported data? A comparison of the British Association of Urological Surgeons radical prostatectomy audit with the National Prostate Cancer Audit Hospital Episode Statistics-linked database

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the accuracy and completeness of surgeon-reported radical prostatectomy outcome data across a national health system by comparison with a national dataset gathered independently from clinicians directly involved in patient care.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data submitted by surgeons to the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) radical prostatectomy audit for all men undergoing radical prostatectomy between 2015 and 2016 were assessed by cross linkage to the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database. Specific data items collected in both databases were selected for comparison analysis. Data completeness and agreement were assessed by percentages and Cohen's kappa statistic.

RESULTS

Data from 4707 men in the BAUS and NPCA databases were matched for comparison. Compared with the NPCA, dataset completeness was higher in the BAUS dataset for type of nerve-sparing procedure (92% vs 42%) and postoperative margin status (89% vs 48%) but lower for readmission (87% vs 100%) and Charlson score (80% vs 100%). For all other variables assessed completeness was comparable. Agreement and data reliability were high for most variables. However, despite good agreement, the inter-cohort reliability was poor for readmission, M stage and Charlson score (κ < 0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

For the first time in urology we show that surgeon-reported data from the BAUS radical prostatectomy audit can reliably be used to benchmark peri-operative radical prostatectomy outcomes. For comorbidity data, to assist with risk analysis, and longer-term outcomes, NPCA routinely collected data provide a more comprehensive source.

[Does structural and process quality of certified prostate cancer centers result in better medical care?]

BACKGROUND

An improved structural and process quality could be demonstrated 13 years after certification of the first German prostate cancer center. The question of optimization of the functional quality by establishing organ cancer centers arises.

OBJECTIVE

A critical benefit-risk analysis of organ cancer centers was carried out to evaluate an improved quality of results.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Based on published results from individual centers and the individual annual reports of the German Cancer Society (DKG), the data for evaluating the quality of results were checked. For the issuing of certificates, the focus is on quality indicators for oncological surgery. The functional quality of results is assessed exclusively by a questionnaire-based survey.

RESULTS

An improvement in the quality of functional results after radical prostatectomy has not yet been demonstrated. The functional quality features of urinary continence and erectile function that are essential for the quality of life and patient satisfaction are only insufficiently assessed due to the lack of objective measuring instruments and are not relevant for certification. There is no reliable evidence for improved overall survival, reduction in tumor-specific mortality, and optimization of functional results in certified centers.

CONCLUSION

The relationship between certification and excellence cannot be proven without individual consideration of a surgeon-specific pentafecta analysis. For this reason, certification-relevant surgeon-related quality assurance is recommended.

Making surgery safer in an increasingly digital world: the internet-friend or foe?

PURPOSE

The internet has resulted in huge efficiency gains in health care, the ability to deal with massive data accumulation and better manage patient data. However, potential and real pitfalls exist, including breeches in security of data and patient confidentiality, data storage issues, errors, and user interface issues.

METHODS

A MEDLINE review was performed using MeSH terms "health care" and "information technology." Cross-referencing was used to explore the different opportunities and challenges the internet has to offer.

RESULTS

As health professionals, we are fast adopting technologies at our fingertips, such as WhatsApp and video capabilities, into our clinical practice to increase productivity and improve patient care. However, the potential security breaches are significant for the health professional and health service. Further, electronic medical records have theoretical advantages to improve patient care, reduce medication errors, and expedite referrals. The downside is a less personalized approach to patient care, as well as the potential for these systems to be even more cumbersome. In regard to the acquisition of knowledge, there is no doubt the internet is our friend. Health care professionals as well as patients have unlimited resources for learning, including podcasts videos, apps, simulators, and wearable devices. Unfortunately, this comes with a risk of misinformation and poorly referenced data with little to no regulation of content.

CONCLUSION

In this increasing digital world, it is our task as health care providers to embrace these new technologies but develop guidelines and control systems to minimize the pitfalls.