Austrian breast cancer patterns-of-care studies PCS93 and PCS01 versus PCS85 to identify changes in national practice.

PURPOSE: To determine the patterns of evaluation and treatment in Austrian breast cancer patients treated with surgery and radiotherapy in 1993 (PCS93) and 2001 (PCS01), and to compare these with the results of PCS85. MATERIAL AND METHODS: According to the evaluation process of the Austrian PCS85, ten randomly selected patient charts from every Austrian radiotherapy center from 1993 (n=100) as well as 2001 (n=120) were reviewed. The work-up included surgical and (histo)pathologic information, systemic therapy and detailed information on radiation therapy. RESULTS: Availability of histopathologic core data improved distinctly between 1985 and 2001. In 1985, treatment planning included fluoroscopic simulation and/or computed tomography in 55% of the cases as compared to 100% in 2001. The technical equipment in Austria changed distinctly. In 2001, 84% of the breast/chest wall fields and all regional node fields (+/- electrons) were treated by photons. Radiotherapy of the supraclavicular (77% vs. 28%), internal mammary (62% vs. 7.5%) and axillary nodes (51% vs. 5%) diminished from 1985 to 2001. A tumor bed boost was given in 34% of the patients in 1985 compared to 73% in 2001. The use of wedges (21% vs. 97%) and the number of port films (26% vs. 90%) increased substantially. CONCLUSION: Comparing both recent Austrian Patterns-of-Care surveys to the results obtained in 1985, an obvious increase in the quality level of histopathologic reporting as well as radiation treatment planning and delivery was found.

[Audit of general hospitals and private surgical clinics in Israel].

BACKGROUND: Supervision and inspection of medical facilities are among the responsibilities of the Ministry of Health (MOH) anchored in the "Public Health Act 1940". In order to implement the law, the General Medical Division of the MOH began the process of auditing hospitals and private surgical clinics prior to considering the reissue of their license. OBJECTIVES: The audit aimed to implement the law, activate supervision on general hospitals and private surgical clinics, provide feed-back to the audited institution and upgrade quality assurance, regulate medical activities according to the activities elaborated in the license and recommend the license renewal. METHODS: Prior to the audits, 20 areas of activity were chosen for inspection. For each activity a check list was developed as a tool for inspection. Each area was inspected during a 4-5 hour visit by a MOH expert, accompanied by the local service manager in the institution under inspection. A comprehensive report, summarizing the findings was sent to the medical institute, requesting correction in those areas where improvements were needed. Recommendation for license renewal was sent to the Director of Licensing Division Ministry of Health. RESULTS: Between June 2003 and July 2006, 91 structured audits took place. A total of 47 general hospitals and 24 private surgical clinics were visited at least once. Most general hospitals were found abiding, functioning according to the required standards and eligible for license renewal. Licenses of institutions that complied with the standards determined by the audit teams, were renewed. Two private hospitals in central Israel, that were given an overall poor evaluation, were issued with a temporary license and subsequently re-audited 4 times over the next two years. Generally, the standards in private surgical clinics were lower than those found in general public hospitals. In one clinic the license was not renewed, and in another an order was issued to cease surgical procedures requiring general anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluations were mainly qualitative, deliberately avoiding numerical rating. In order to improve the process in the future and facilitate common scale rating to establish an equitable comparison system between institutions, it will be necessary to develop more quality measures and compulsory standards, based on the measures used during the first round of audits. Publication of the results of such comparisons, will elevate medical performance, and ultimately improve the quality of services and medical care in Israel.