Risk adjusted benchmarking of abdominoperineal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma in the context of the Belgian PROCARE improvement project.

OBJECTIVE: The abdominoperineal excision (APE) rate, a quality of care indicator in rectal cancer surgery, has been criticised if not adjusted for confounding factors. This study evaluates variability in APE rate between centres participating in PROCARE, a Belgian improvement initiative, before and after risk adjustment. It also explores the effect of merging the Hartmann resections (HR) rate with that of APE on benchmarking. DESIGN: Data of 3197 patients who underwent elective radical resection for invasive rectal adenocarcinoma up to 15 cm were registered between January 2006 and March 2011 by 59 centres, each with at least 10 patients in the registry. Variability of APE or merged APE/HR rates between centres was analysed before and after adjustment for gender, age, ASA score (3 or more), tumour level (rectal third), depth of tumour invasion (cT4) and preoperative incontinence. RESULTS: The overall APE rate was 21.1% (95% CI 19.7 to 22.5%). Significant variation of the APE rate was observed before and after risk adjustment (p<0.0001). For cancers in the lower rectal third, the overall APE rate increased to 45.8% (95% CI 43.1 to 48.5%). Also, variation between centres increased. Risk adjustment influenced the identification of outliers. HR was performed in only 2.6% of patients. However, merging of risk adjusted APE and HR rates identified other centres with outlying definitive colostomy rates than APE rate alone. CONCLUSION: Significant variation of the APE rate was observed. Adjustment for confounding factors as well as merging HR with APE rates were found to be important for the assessment of performances.

Developing and measuring a set of process and outcome indicators for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This study aimed at developing and measuring a set of indicators to monitor the quality of breast cancer care, to make comparisons over time and to support quality improvement for all practitioners and centres involved in the care of breast cancer women. METHODS: Quality indicators were identified from a systematic literature search and the 2010 Belgian evidence-based clinical practice guideline. The selection process involved an expert panel evaluating reliability, relevance, interpretability and actionability of each indicator. The quality indicators were tested using the Belgian Cancer Registry data linked with claims data for all women registered with breast cancer in Belgium between 2001 and 2006 (n=50,039). RESULTS: The selection process led to a final set of 32 indicators. Of these, 12 were measurable using the available data, while 1 indicator was measurable using proxy information. Five-year relative survival was 98%, 87%, 68% and 29% for pStage I, II, III and cStage IV respectively. Overall 5-year survival slightly improved for pStage II, III and cStage IV between 2001 and 2004. Of the surgically treated women, 60% underwent breast conserving surgery, 85% received adjuvant systemic treatment and 86% were irradiated postoperatively. In 80% of women treated for breast cancer, at least one mammography was performed within one year after the last treatment. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates the feasibility to develop a multidisciplinary set of quality indicators for breast cancer. Using national cancer registry data linked to claims data, 13 indicators were measurable, showing results that largely correspond to other studies in the field.

Quality indicators for testicular cancer: a population-based study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed at developing and measuring an indicator set to monitor the quality of testicular cancer care, to make comparisons over time and to support quality improvement for all practitioners and centres involved in the care of testicular cancer patients. METHODS: Quality indicators were identified from a systematic literature search and from the 2010 Belgian evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. The selection process involved an expert panel evaluating reliability, relevance, interpretability and actionability of each indicator. The quality indicators were pilot tested using the Belgian Cancer Registry (BCR) data linked with claims data for 1307 men with testicular cancer diagnosed between 2001 and 2006. The variability between centres was displayed using funnel plots. RESULTS: Of the 12 finally selected indicators, 5 were fully and 1 was partly measurable, while 2 indicators were measurable using proxy information. Five-year relative survival was 97%, 95% and 76% for pStage I-III, respectively. Overall 5-year survival slightly improved from 91% in 2001 to 94% in 2004. Between 2004 and 2006, 14 of 97 centres performed ≥10 orchidectomies. Large variability was found between centres. The nine centres with a 5-year observed survival below the lower limit treated less than 20 patients between 2001 and 2006. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates the feasibility to develop a multidisciplinary set of quality indicators for testicular cancer. Using national cancer registry data linked to claims data, eight indicators were measurable, showing a mixed picture of the quality of care for testicular cancer patients in Belgium.

Effect of hospital volume on processes of care and 5-year survival after breast cancer: a population-based study on 25000 women.

PURPOSE: To compare processes of care and survival for breast cancer by hospital volume in Belgium, based on 11 validated process quality indicators. METHODS: Three databases were linked at the patient level: the Cancer Registry, the population and the claims databases. All women with a diagnosis of invasive breast cancer between 2004 and 2006 were selected. Hospitals were classified according to their annual volume of treated patients: <50 (very low), 50-99 (low), 100-149 (medium) and ≥ 150 patients (high). Cox and logistic regression models were used to test differences in 5-year survival and in achievement of process indicators across volume categories, adjusting for age, tumor grade and stage. RESULTS: A total of 25178 women with invasive breast cancer were treated in 111 hospitals. Half of the hospitals (N=57) treated <50 patients per year. Six of eleven process indicators showed higher rates in high-volume hospitals: multidisciplinary team meeting, cytological and/or histological assessment before surgery, use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, breast-conserving surgery rate, adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery, and follow-up mammography. Higher volume was also associated with improved survival. The 5-year observed survival rates were 74.9%, 78.8%, 79.8% and 83.9% for patients treated in very-low-, low-, medium- and high-volume hospitals respectively. After case-mix adjustment, patients treated in very-low- or low-volume hospitals had a hazard ratio for death of 1.26 (95% CI 1.12, 1.42) and 1.15 (95% CI 1.01, 1.30) respectively compared with high-volume hospitals. CONCLUSION: Survival benefits reported in high-volume hospitals suggest a better application of recommended processes of care, justifying the centralization of breast cancer care in such hospitals.

Somatic complaint differences between Turkish immigrants and Belgians: do all roads lead to Rome?

OBJECTIVE: Turkish immigrants have been found to report more somatic complaints compared to western majority groups. The present study investigates the combination of two cultural explanations (somatization versus psychologization and emotion mediation) with two acculturative explanations (acculturative stress versus acculturative transition) to explain these differences. DESIGN: In total, 144 Turkish immigrants, 353 Belgian majority members, and 222 Turkish majority members were asked to report the last three emotional episodes they encountered and to rate them on 24 emotion terms and 17 somatic sensations. RESULTS: Turkish majorities scored higher on all somatic factors, anxiety-sadness, and self-conscious emotions followed by Turkish immigrants and Belgian majorities. Furthermore, path analysis showed (partial) mediation effects of anxiety-sadness and self-conscious factors on the differences in the somatic factors between Belgian and Turkish majorities. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that the somatic differences do not result from a trade-off between somatization and psychologization, but that emotions mediate differences in somatic processes to a large extent. It was also found that differences between Turkish immigrants and Belgian majority members are to be attributed to acculturative transition, rather than to acculturative stress.

Validity of the Ghent Multidimensional Somatic Complaints Scale in a clinical sample.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of the Ghent Multidimensional Somatic Complaints Scale (GMSCS) in a Clinical Sample. METHOD: Three hundred fifty-four non-clinical subjects and 151 clinical patients completed the GMSCS, an 18-item five-factorial scale for the assessment of somatic complaints. RESULTS: The five-factorial structure was reliable and valid in the non-clinical as well as the clinical sample. Furthermore, group differences after controlling for the other factors were only significant for pain and fatigue. CONCLUSION: The GMSCS is a suitable multidimensional scale for assessing five clusters of somatic complaints in a clinical (primary care and pain patients) and non-clinical population.

Development of the Ghent Multidimensional Somatic Complaints Scale.

The present study aimed at developing a new scale that operationalizes a hierarchical model of somatic complaints. First, 63 items representing a wide range of symptoms and sensations were compiled from somatic complaints scales and emotion literature. These complaints were rated by Belgian students (n = 307) and Belgian adults (n = 603). Exploratory factor analyses identified a gastrointestinal, cardiorespiratory, pain, temperature regulation, and fatigue factor. Next, the number of complaints was reduced to 18. Second, the short scale, called the Ghent Multidimensional Somatic Complaints Scale (GMSC), was administered to Belgian students (n = 735), Belgian adults (n = 664), and Turkish adults (n = 222). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that a higher-order model with five first-order and one second-order factor fitted best. Regression analyses demonstrated that the first-order factors were differentially related to anxiety, depression, anger, age, and gender. In sum, the GMSC scale offers the possibility to assess individual differences in somatic complaints from a hierarchical perspective.

The unbearable lightness of somatisation: a systematic review of the concept of somatisation in empirical studies of pain.

Somatisation is often invoked to explain pain and suffering in patients. Lipowski [34] defined somatisation as "a tendency to experience and communicate somatic distress and symptoms unaccounted for by pathological findings, to attribute them to physical illness, and to seek medical help for them" (p. 1359). His concept is widely accepted. This study investigated to what extent this conceptualisation is used in the empirical studies of pain. Studies were identified through searches from Web of Science, Pubmed and Psychinfo databases for the period from 1989 until 2007. Screening an initial set of 1020 articles resulted in 120 articles fulfilling inclusion criteria. One hundred and sixteen articles were retrieved and coded in terms of the conceptualisation of Lipowski [34]. All studies had a measure of somatic symptoms, most often questionnaires. Whether the symptoms were unaccounted for by pathological findings was rarely investigated. No study assessed whether the participants attributed the somatic complaints to physical illness. Most studies included patients seeking help in a clinical setting, but only one study investigated whether patients were seeking help for the somatisation complaints. In conclusion, no study fulfilled the construct criteria as defined by Lipowski [34]. Most studies focus upon the extent and diversity of somatic complaints. We recommend that researchers who use self-report instruments do not use the term "somatisation" (even if the instrument is labeled as a "somatisation" scale), but use the term "multiple physical symptoms" instead. The current operational use may unduly lead to a "psychologisation" of physical complaints.