Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24584335›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2014

Documented quality of care in certified colorectal cancer centers in Germany: German Cancer Society benchmarking report for 2013.

S Wesselmann, A Winter, J Ferencz, T Seufferlein, S Post

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Quality indicators in radiation oncology: proposal of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR) for a continuous improvement of the quality of care in oncology.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Report from the OECI Oncology Days 2014.Ecancermedicalscience · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

S WesselmannDeutsche Krebsgesellschaft e.V., Bereichsleiterin Zertifizierung, Kuno-Fischer-Straße, 814057, Berlin, Germany, wesselmann@krebsgesellschaft.de.
A Winter
J Ferencz
T Seufferlein
S Post
Deutsche Schmerzgesellschaft · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEUniversity Hospital Ulm · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn order to improve the quality of treatment for cancer patients the German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft) implemented a certification system for oncological care institutions. The certified colorectal cancer centers present the structures, processes and results of their network in the framework of an auditing procedure.

methodsThe current benchmarking report by the certified centers reflects the centers' reference results over a period of 3 years. The figures included in the benchmarking report reflect the areas of interdisciplinary collaboration, guideline-compliant treatment, and expertise of the main treatment partners.

resultsHigh percentages were shown for indicators reflecting pretreatment and postoperative case presentations in multidisciplinary team meetings (91.8 % or 98.1 %), psycho-oncologic care (54.8 %) as well as social service counseling (77.1 %). Good quality of the TME rectal specimen and adequate lymph-node retrieval (12 lymph nodes at least) was achieved by 93 % or 96.6 % of the centers. Adjuvant chemotherapy (colon, Union for International Cancer Control [UICC] stage III) or neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy (rectum, UICC stages II and III) received 73.7 % or 80 % of relevant patients. Quotas of anastomotic leakage in the colon or rectum were 4.4 % or 7.6 %, whereas postoperative mortality amounted to 2.6 %.

conclusionsThe present analysis of the results, together with the centers' statements and the auditors' reports, shows that most of the targets for indicator figures are being better met over the course of time. In addition, however, there is a clear potential for improvement and the centers are verifiably addressing this. A transparent presentation of the quality of care and reflection on and discussion of the results among the treatment partners in the certified network and with the auditors during the certification process may contribute to constant quality improvement in oncological care.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingCancer Care FacilitiesCertificationChemotherapy, AdjuvantClinical CompetenceColorectal NeoplasmsGermanyGuideline AdherenceHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationNeoadjuvant TherapyPatient Care TeamRadiotherapy, Adjuvant

Identifiers

PMID24584335
OpenAlexW1979757927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.