Abstract
Purpose
In 2008, the German Cancer Society certification program for prostate cancer centers (PCCs) was introduced, fostering multidisciplinary and interprofessional cooperation. Since then, 97 PCCs have been certified. This paper describes the PCC certification program, quality indicators (QI) that are reported during certification, as well as changes over time and correlates of QI fulfillment.
Methods
Observational data from 70,683 primary prostate cancer (PCa) cases treated between 2010 and 2013 in certified PCC sites are analyzed using descriptive and correlation analyses.
Results
Fulfillment of the requirements is high with over 80 % of the sites fulfilling the requirements for most of the presented QIs with defined target values. Fulfillment increased slightly over time, with significant improvements in conducting multidisciplinary tumor conferences (increasing proportion of cases presented pre- and post-treatment, increasing participation of specialists), psycho-oncologic care, social service counseling and research participation. Bivariate associations between hospital characteristics and QIs observed were most distinct for time since first certification.
Conclusions
Results suggest that the PCC certification program presented contributes to establishing multidisciplinary teams over time and assures the provision of high-quality PCa care. However, differences in fulfillment of the requirements exist with regard to hospital characteristics beyond the scope of the certification system.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer among men in Western countries with an estimated 65,830 newly diagnosed patients in 2010 in Germany (lung: 35,040 men; colon: 33,800 men). 12,676 patients die of the disease per year in Germany [1], while the PCa death rate decreases in the USA, in Germany, and in Europe overall [2, 3]. The many different treatment options as well as specific side-effects and benefits call for treatment and counseling by multidisciplinary and interprofessional teams [4–6]. To our knowledge, the first multidisciplinary clinic for the treatment of PCa has been founded as early as 1996 in the USA [5, 7, 8], and since then, quite a number of countries have introduced national efforts and established multidisciplinary PCa units [9]. In Germany, the introduction of prostate cancer centers (PCCs) was driven by efforts of the medical societies, patient advocacy groups, as well as the federal government. PCCs in Germany are certified by the German Cancer Society, the association of medical oncologic societies. The centers are multidisciplinary in that they require the collaboration of the relevant medical disciplines. They are at the same time interprofessional, in that the relevant non-medical professional groups, like social workers and psycho-oncologists, are involved in patient care and also take part in the tumor boards, the heart of multidisciplinary and interprofessional cancer care, and in that patient advocacy group provide additional on-site support.
Since 2008, the certification program of the German Cancer Society includes PCCs, making them the third specific cancer center type to be recognized, after breast (2003) and colorectal (2006) cancer centers. As of 2014, about a third of all German newly diagnosed PCa patients were treated in a certified center. The basis of the certification program for PCCs is the catalogue of requirements a center needs to fulfill in order to be awarded the certificate. The requirements are developed by the certification commission, which consists of 35 experts from the professions and disciplines specialized in the field of PCa, as well as patient advocacy groups [10]. Among these requirements are quality indicators (QIs) that are reported to the public annually in structured reports [11]. These QIs are classified into (1) QIs that refer to interdisciplinary collaboration and (2) PCa specific QIs (guideline-based [12] and specialist expertise). Thus, QIs are based on expert opinion and on the clinical guidelines. This allows for including QIs for all disciplines that refer to treatment procedures and structures, and also to specialist expertise that has been shown to impact outcomes, such as patient volume [13]. Prospectively, these QIs will be supplemented by guideline derived QIs that are developed following a formalized methodology that has been described in more detail for melanoma [14]. QIs are reevaluated regularly by the certification commission based on the centers’ results and guideline updates. Based on these discussions, QIs may be omitted, added, re-defined or their thresholds may be modified. For example, the research study target value was recently lowered from 10 to 5 %.
This report analyzes a selection of 15 quality indicators collected during the certification process for PCCs and shows the development over time from 2010 to 2013. As yet, attempts to link fulfillment of accreditation/certification criteria to hospital characteristics are rare although they may give valuable insights into what facilitates or hinders the implementation of such programs [15]. Thus, ultimately, we exploratorily investigate how requirement fulfillment relates to hospital characteristics that are beyond the scope of the certification system itself.
Patients and methods
Data collection
Hospitals that intend to be (re-)certified as a PCC have to document the fulfillment of the requirements and report these to OnkoZert, the certification institute that organizes the auditing procedure on behalf of the German Cancer Society. After collecting the data from the operating sites, these are edited and tested for plausibility. Most indicators have plausibility thresholds and, if these are not reached, the centers have to report on the deviations. Subsequent to the reporting year, hospitals are audited by trained oncologic medical experts who check the reported data before the audit and have insight into patient files to verify the data onsite. Data are published for comparison between sites in the year after the auditing. For example, 2013 data are audited during 2014, and published during 2015, thus, the most recent data presented here are based on the 2013 patient cohort. Data presented are limited to those from the 2010 patient cohort onwards after the method of collecting and quality assurance was fully established. Data are only available for centers that were certified throughout the year and had no change in the documentation system. Table 1 presents a description of PCCs certified between 2010 and 2013, and Fig. 1 presents an overview over the most recent patient cohort treated in these centers, the distribution of cancer stages, and treatments. We present 15 QIs that are collected during certification [11] to give an overview of indicators referring to interdisciplinary cooperation (11), and QIs that are PCa specific, guideline-based, or refer to the specialist expertise (4). The indicators are listed in Table 2. All indicators presented relate to primary cases except for QIs 3–6, which relate to participation of specialists, and QI 8 as well as QI 15, which relate to patients with recurrences or distant metastases and all radical prostatectomies, respectively.
Statistical analyses
We present absolute patient numbers and proportions of patients receiving a specific procedure for all years when applicable, and the proportion of sites fulfilling the target values in 2013. Trends over time are analyzed using two-sided Cochran–Armitage tests with Monte Carlo method when QIs are fractions. We analyzed associations between the QIs and select hospital characteristics: the “conventional set” [15] ownership status (charitable, for-profit, public), teaching status (yes, no), and volume (primary cases, continuous); urbanity of hospital location [small town (pop. <20,000), medium sized town/city (20,000–100,000), large city (>100,000)]; and time since first certification in years (continuous). Spearman’s r was calculated for associations between QIs and volume and time since first certification; t tests for associations with teaching status; and Kruskal–Wallis tests with pairwise comparisons for associations with ownership status and urbanity. Descriptive analyses are done using the Data-WhiteBox; Cochran–Armitage tests were calculated using XLSTAT Version 2015.3.01. Bivariate correlations were calculated using SPSS 23.
Results
The number of certified sites increased steadily from 2010 to 2012 and remained stable in 2013. The number of patients treated in these centers increased until 2012 and slightly decreased in 2013 (Table 1). In 2013, 20,682 primary cases were treated in 94 certified PCCs. Of these, two centers serve an extraordinarily high number of patients, with one treating 2124 primary cases alone. Data were available from 91 centers that treated 18,288 primary cases (Table 1). The vast majority of these patients were treated with an intervention (16,948; Fig. 1). Of the 1340 patients treated with watchful waiting (WW) or active surveillance (AS), 849 had a localized PCa with low risk.
Table 2 presents results for the QIs over time. Fulfillment is high with over 80 % of the sites fulfilling the recommendations for all but three of the presented QIs with defined target values. Over time, fulfillment of seven requirements increased significantly, specifically with regard to conducting multidisciplinary tumor conferences (increasing proportion of cases presented pre- and post-treatment, increasing participation of specialists), psycho-oncologic care, social service counseling and research participation (QIs 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11). Fulfillment of the QI for which data were only available for 2 years decreased (12) with p < 0.001.
The bivariate analyses (Table 2: columns on the right) identified statistically significant associations between patient volume and case presentation in pre-therapy conference through radiotherapy (r = −0.269, p = 0.011), participation of radiotherapists in pre-therapy conferences (r = 0.214, p = 0.042), and postoperative wound infection (r = −0.212, p = 0.044); between time since first certification and participation of urologists/medical oncologists in pre-therapy conferences (r = 0.275, p = 0.008), psycho-oncologic care (r = 0.209, p = 0.046), and the number of primary cases (r = 0.224, p = 0.033); between charitable (compared to public) ownership and case presentation in pre-treatment conference through urology (adj. p = 0.030); between private (compared to public) ownership and presentation rates of recurrence/distant metastasis patients at the post-therapy conferences (adj. p = 0.035); and higher presentation rates of recurrence/distant metastasis patients at the post-therapy conferences in non-teaching units (p < 0.001).
Discussion
This article for the first time provides nationwide treatment data for the E.U.’s most populous country’s PCa center certification system. Fulfillment of the requirements was initially high and improved slightly overall. Only few bivariate analyses with hospital characteristics yielded statistically significant results, with the most uniform pattern identified with regard to time since first certification: higher implementation of requirements was associated with longer time since first certification. These cross-sectional analyses, however, do not allow for causal inference: The “time since first certification effect” may, e.g., be both due to learning or because better implementing centers applied for certification earlier. Similar limitations apply for the ownership and teaching status variables (i.e., no adjustment for time since a possible status change). Also, individual-level case mix adjustment is not possible, since the data are reported aggregated on center level for certification. These exploratory results based on a huge database call for analyses based on individual data linked with hospital characteristics as has been done for other cancers [16]. Such data, however, are not available for PCa centers in Germany yet.
Prostatectomy was the most common treatment regimen for localized and locally advanced PCa in the certified centers, especially when comparing with data from other countries. It must be kept in mind, however, that AS or WW patients may not always be seen by PCCs but treated by office-based urologists who are often not part of a certified network. Because the centers that were certified early on tended to be larger university centers and those that were certified recently tended to be smaller units, the median of patients per center decreased slightly over time.
PCCs differ from other certified center types for two reasons inherent in the disease. First, there is a wider range of therapy options, and there are various ways to combine them. These options/combinations are performed either through hospital or office-based urologists, or hospital or office-based radiotherapists. As a result, interdisciplinary discussion during the pre- and post-therapeutic tumor boards is essential to balance preferences of one discipline that may exist in local contexts. Second, the dual infrastructure for medical specialists in Germany—that is, due to the two sectors of secondary care (hospitals, office-based physicians)—results in a substantial number of patients being seen by only one specialist without a connection to other experienced colleagues or to a certified PCC. The objective of the certification system is—among other issues—to provide a network of qualified partners that represents the entire chain of health care specialists for as many patients as possible and to evaluate the patients’ disease and treatments in a multidisciplinary manner [17, 18]. This does not mean that office-based colleagues shall refer their patients to hospitals, but that they become part of the network while keeping their role as the patient’s gate keeper. The interdisciplinary collaboration in certified prostate cancer networks is mainly focusing on the multidisciplinary tumor board that is controlled by the number of patients discussed in the pre- and post-therapeutic conferences, and the participation of core disciplines. The pretreatment multidisciplinary conference is chaired by the urologist and the radio-oncologist. The two related QIs reflect the number of patients who are presented in the tumor board out of the total number of primary cases from urology (QI 1) and radiotherapy (QI 2). Both indicators show a very good fulfillment of the target values.
The requirements explicitly include the provision of social service and psycho-oncologic counseling, i.e., elements of care that do not refer to the quality of technical/medical but to interpersonal care [19]. Comparison with other center types that have the same criteria show that implementation is higher in breast and colorectal cancer centers [20, 21], which may be due to gender-specific patient preferences.
The target value for the recording of R1 resections with pT2 c/pN0 or Nx Mo, however, is fulfilled by only 57.1 % of the PCCs (<10 %), and the range varies between 0.0 and 26.9 % (ranges not reported). The reasons given by the PCCs for this wide range are diverse—learning curves after implementation of the new technique of laparoscopic or robot-assisted RPE in combination with too restricted apical resection and missing color coding of the specimens. In addition, the histopathological assessment of the specimens differs considerably between centers, despite formal standard operation procedures depicted in the national guidelines. The PCCs have agreed on various measures within the audits: surgical advanced education, color coding of the specimens, and uropathology conferences to reflect the R1 cases.
Comparable research has shown that having compliance rates of 100 % for a whole set of indicators is unlikely to be achieved [22], and also, is not the ultimate aim of such a program. Instead, using the data and the resulting benchmark to initiate processes of reflection and the development of care, quality improvement strategies are encouraged. Not fulfilling the requirements without giving appropriate reasons and without credibly showing the intent of improving care, however, will ultimately result in the denial of the certificate. Studies that relate structure and process QIs to clinically relevant outcomes were able to show clear associations [23], but deeper insight is still needed [24]. Future challenges include the incorporation of patient reported outcome measures, like it is done in other certification programs [25], a careful analysis of the impact of the certification system on long-term survival, and the identification of potential disparities between social groups [26].
References
Robert-Koch-Institut, GeKiD (eds) (2013) Krebs in Deutschland 2009/2010, 9th edn. Robert-Koch-Institut, Berlin
Malvezzi M, Bertuccio P, Levi F, La Vecchia C, Negri E (2014) European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2014. Ann Oncol 25(8):1650–1656. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu138
DeSantis CE, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, Siegel RL, Stein KD, Kramer JL, Alteri R, Robbins AS, Jemal A (2014) Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64(4):252–271. doi:10.3322/caac.21235
Magnani T, Valdagni R, Salvioni R, Villa S, Bellardita L, Donegani S, Nicolai N, Procopio G, Bedini N, Rancati T, Zaffaroni N (2012) The 6-year attendance of a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic in Italy: incidence of management changes. BJU Int 110(7):998–1003. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10970.x
Valicenti RK, Gomella LG, El-Gabry EA, Myers R, Nathan F, Strup S, Dicker A, McGinnis DE, Cardi G, Baltish M, Simirgliano M, Vizzard A, Mulholland SG (2000) The multidisciplinary clinic approach to prostate cancer counseling and treatment. Semin Urol Oncol 18(3):188–191
Sternberg CN, Krainer M, Oh WK, Bracarda S, Bellmunt J, Ozen H, Zlotta A, Beer TM, Oudard S, Rauchenwald M, Skoneczna I, Borner MM, Fitzpatrick JM (2007) The medical management of prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary team approach. BJU Int 99(1):22–27. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06477.x
Gomella LG (2011) The prostate cancer unit: a multidisciplinary approach for which the time has arrived. Eur Urol 60(6):1197–1199. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.08.023
Gomella LG, Lin J, Hoffman-Censits J, Dugan P, Guiles F, Lallas CD, Singh J, McCue P, Showalter T, Valicenti RK, Dicker A, Trabulsi EJ (2010) Enhancing prostate cancer care through the multidisciplinary clinic approach: a 15-year experience. J Oncol Pract 6(6):e5–e10. doi:10.1200/jop.2010.000071
Valdagni R, Albers P, Bangma C, Drudge-Coates L, Magnani T, Moynihan C, Parker C, Redmond K, Sternberg CN, Denis L, Costa A (2011) The requirements of a specialist Prostate Cancer Unit: a discussion paper from the European School of Oncology. Eur J Cancer 47(1):1–7. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2010.10.029
Steffens JA, Ting O, Schmidt S, Albers P (2010) Certified prostate cancer centers of the German Cancer Society: current status 2 years after certification and future developments. Urologe 49(8):910–915. doi:10.1007/s00120-010-2301-0
Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft (ed) (2014) Jahresbericht der zertifizierten Prostatakrebszentren. Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Berlin
Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (ed) (2011) Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms, Version 2.0, AWMF registry: 043/022OL. Berlin
Trinh QD, Bjartell A, Freedland SJ, Hollenbeck BK, Hu JC, Shariat SF, Sun M, Vickers AJ (2013) A systematic review of the volume–outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 64(5):786–798. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.04.012
Follmann M, Schadendorf D, Kochs C, Buchberger B, Winter A, Wesselmann S (2013) Quality assurance for care of melanoma patients based on guideline-derived quality indicators and certification. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 12(2):139–147
Hearld LR, Alexander JA, Fraser I, Jiang HJ (2008) Review: how do hospital organizational structure and processes affect quality of care? A critical review of research methods. Med Care Res Rev 65(3):259–299. doi:10.1177/1077558707309613
Hartrampf J, Ansmann L, Wesselmann S, Beckmann M, Pfaff H, Kowalski C (2014) Influence of patient and hospital characteristics on the performance of direct reconstruction after mastectomy. Frauenheilk 74(12):1128–1136. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1383400
Aneja S, Yu JB (2012) The impact of county-level radiation oncologist density on prostate cancer mortality in the United States. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 15(4):391–396. doi:10.1038/pcan.2012.28
Ploussard G, Albrand G, Rozet F, Lang H, Paillaud E, Mongiat-Artus P (2014) Challenging treatment decision-making in older urologic cancer patients. World J Urol 32(2):299–308. doi:10.1007/s00345-013-1158-4
Donabedian A (1966) Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Q 44(3 Suppl):166–206
Singer S, Dieng S, Wesselmann S (2013) Psycho-oncological care in certified cancer centres—a nationwide analysis in Germany. Psychooncology 22(6):1435–1437. doi:10.1002/pon.3145
Kowalski C, Ferencz J, Weis I, Adolph H, Wesselmann S (2015) Social service counseling in cancer centers certified by the German Cancer Society. Soci Work Health Care 54(4):307–319
Brundage M, Danielson B, Pearcey R, Bass B, Pickles T, Bahary JP, Peng Y, Wallace D, Mackillop W (2013) A criterion-based audit of the technical quality of external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 107(3):339–345. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2013.04.023
Webber C, Brundage MD, Siemens DR, Groome PA (2013) Quality of care indicators and their related outcomes: a population-based study in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 107(3):358–365. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2013.04.017
Merkow RP, Chung JW, Paruch JL, Bentrem DJ, Bilimoria KY (2014) Relationship between cancer center accreditation and performance on publicly reported quality measures. Ann Surg 259(6):1091–1097. doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000000542
Kowalski C, Wesselmann S, Kreienberg R, Schulte H, Pfaff H (2012) The patientsʼ view on accredited breast cancer centers: strengths and potential for improvement. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 72(2):137–143
Klein J, von dem Knesebeck O (2015) Socioeconomic inequalities in prostate cancer survival: a review of the evidence and explanatory factors. Soc Sci Med 142:9–18
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the members of the certification commission as well as the PCCs’ staff who work on delivering and improving care every day. No funds were received from any sources for this work.
Authors’ contribution
Kowalski involved in data analysis and wrote and edited the manuscript. Ferencz involved in data collection and management, data analysis and wrote and edited the manuscript. Albers involved in protocol/project development and wrote and edited the manuscript. Fichtner involved in protocol/project development and wrote and edited the manuscript. Wiegel involved in protocol/project development and wrote and edited the manuscript. Feick involved in protocol/project development and wrote and edited the manuscript. Wesselmann involved in protocol/project development and wrote and edited the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
C.K., S.W., and J.F. are employees of the two institutions in charge of the certification system. P.A., J.F., T.W., and G.F. are chairs/members of the German Cancer Society certification commission on PCCs.
Ethical standard
Research presented here is based on routinely collected data, and as such not subject to the declaration of Helsinki. For this type of study formal consent is not required.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kowalski, C., Ferencz, J., Albers, P. et al. Quality assessment in prostate cancer centers certified by the German Cancer Society. World J Urol 34, 665–672 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1688-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1688-z