Healthcare is under pressure: an ageing population, healthcare-staff shortage, quality (healthcare outcomes) must increase and costs must be reduced.Yet, what are the outcomes of healthcare?For... Show moreHealthcare is under pressure: an ageing population, healthcare-staff shortage, quality (healthcare outcomes) must increase and costs must be reduced.Yet, what are the outcomes of healthcare?For some conditions, quality of care is measured for every patient. Unfortunately, this is not the case for prostate cancer and lumbar disk herniation in the Netherlands. We used claims data to evaluate healthcare outcomes and volume-outcome relationships.Examples of our results:Prostate cancer:• More than 30% of patients is incontinent 1 year after radical prostatectomy• Large differences between hospitals (19%-85%)• Risk of incontinence is 52% lower at highest-volume hospitalsLumbar disk herniation:• One year after hernia surgery, 23% of patients have one or more undesirable outcomes (e.g. re-operation, use of opioids).• Wide variation in number of operations and outcomes per hospitalOur recommendations:• Reconsider the disproportionately strict interpretation of the GDPR (AVG) for healthcare research• Unlock the huge potential of healthcare research based on existing data • Make routine measurement of healthcare outcomes a national standard, for prostate cancer even on a per surgeon level• Centralization of care should be combined with outcome measurement• Hospitals should share healthcare outcomes with patients• Our results urge doctors, health insurers, patient organizations and policymakers to take action Show less
Background: This study aims to assess the impact of nationwide centralization of surgery on travel distance and travel burden among patients with oesophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer... Show moreBackground: This study aims to assess the impact of nationwide centralization of surgery on travel distance and travel burden among patients with oesophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer according to age in the Netherlands. As centralization of care increases to improve postoperative outcomes, travel distance and experienced burden might increase. Materials and methods: All patients who underwent surgery between 2006 and 2017 for oesophageal, gastric and pancreatic cancer in the Netherlands were included. Travel distance between patient's home address and hospital of surgery in kilometres was calculated. Questionnaires were used to assess experienced travel burden in a subpopulation (n = 239). Multivariable ordinal logistic regression models were constructed to identify predictors for longer travel distance. Results: Over 23,838 patients were included, in whom median travel distance for surgical care increased for oesophageal cancer (n = 9217) from 18 to 28 km, for gastric cancer (n = 6743) from 9 to 26 km, and for pancreatic cancer (n = 7878) from 18 to 25 km (all p < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses showed an increase in travel distance for all cancer types over time. In general, patients experienced a physical and social burden, and higher financial costs, due to traveling extra kilometres. Patients aged >70 years travelled less often independently (56% versus 68%), as compared to patients aged <= 70 years. Conclusion: With nationwide centralization, travel distance increased for patients undergoing oesophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer surgery. Younger patients travelled longer distances and experienced a lower travel burden, as compared to elderly patients. Nevertheless, on a global scale, travel distances in the Netherlands remain limited. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved. Show less
Linden, M.C. van der; Linden, N. van der; Lam, R.C.; Stap, P.; Brand, C.L. van den; Vermeulen, T.; ... ; Wijngaard, I.R. van den 2021
When acute stroke care is organised using a "drip-and-ship" model, patients receive immediate treatment at the nearest primary stroke centre followed by transfer to a comprehensive stroke centre ... Show moreWhen acute stroke care is organised using a "drip-and-ship" model, patients receive immediate treatment at the nearest primary stroke centre followed by transfer to a comprehensive stroke centre (CSC). When stroke care is further centralised into the "direct-to-mothership" model, patients with stroke symptoms are immediately brought to a CSC to further reduce treatment times and enhance stroke outcomes. We investigated the effects of the ongoing centralization in a Dutch urban setting on treatment times of patients with confirmed ischemic stroke in a 4-year period. Next, in a non-randomized controlled trial, we assessed treatment times of patients with suspected ischemic stroke, and treatment times of patients with neurologic disorders other than suspected ischemic stroke, before and after the intervention in the CSC and the decentralized hospitals, the intervention being the change from "drip and ship" into "direct-to-mothership". Our findings provide support for the ongoing centralization of acute stroke care in urban areas. Treatment times for patients with ischemic stroke decreased significantly, potentially improving functional outcomes. Improvements in treatment times for patients with suspected ischemic stroke were achieved without negative side effects for self-referrals with stroke symptoms and patients with other neurological disorders. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ) Show less
Purpose Interhospital referral is a consequence of centralization of complex oncological care but might negatively impact waiting time, a quality indicator in the Netherlands. This study aims to... Show morePurpose Interhospital referral is a consequence of centralization of complex oncological care but might negatively impact waiting time, a quality indicator in the Netherlands. This study aims to evaluate characteristics and waiting times of patients with primary colorectal cancer who are referred between hospitals. Methods Data were extracted from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2015-2019). Waiting time between first tumor-positive biopsy until first treatment was compared between subgroups stratified for referral status, disease stage, and type of hospital. Results In total, 46,561 patients were included. Patients treated for colon or rectal cancer in secondary care hospitals were referred in 12.2% and 14.7%, respectively. In tertiary care hospitals, corresponding referral rates were 43.8% and 66.4%. Referred patients in tertiary care hospitals were younger, but had a more advanced disease stage, and underwent more often multivisceral resection and simultaneous metastasectomy than non-referred patients in secondary care hospitals (p<0.001). Referred patients were more often treated within national quality standards for waiting time compared to non-referred patients (p<0.001). For referred patients, longer waiting times prior to MDT were observed compared to non-referred patients within each hospital type, although most time was spent post-MDT. Conclusion A large proportion of colorectal cancer patients that are treated in tertiary care hospitals are referred from another hospital but mostly treated within standards for waiting time. These patients are younger but often have a more advanced disease. This suggests that these patients are willing to travel more but also reflects successful centralization of complex oncological patients in the Netherlands. Show less
This thesis shows that quality of care in surgical oncology varies by provider and is partly based on differences in procedural volume and other attributes of hospitals. Especially for low-volume... Show moreThis thesis shows that quality of care in surgical oncology varies by provider and is partly based on differences in procedural volume and other attributes of hospitals. Especially for low-volume high-risk surgical procedures concentration of services in hospitals with better outcomes (outcome-based referral) can lead to dramatic improvement in short- as well as long-term outcomes. Casemix- and reliability adjustments are essential in the evaluation of quality of care. In addition, an integrated approach, in which several determinants of outcome are combined, might provide a more valid instrument to assess the quality of complex clinical processes. Clinical audit combines several ways to improve quality of care. It stimulates guideline adherence and provides clinicians with continuous and timely feedback on their performance, in relation to a national benchmark. Feedback itself has proven to be very effective, though the most important benefits of clinical audit can be found in the identification and appreciation of clinical processes that lead to better outcomes. This knowledge can be transferred to all practices treating such patient groups, improving outcome on a population-level. In addition, transparency of reliable, meaningful, hospital-specific outcome information, can catalyst the continuous process of quality improvement, steer patients to the right hospitals and reduce the costs of healthcare. Show less
