A dynamic clinical pathway for the treatment of patients with early breast cancer is a tool for better cancer care: implementation and prospective analysis between 2002–2010

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

Luc Dirix¹  Peter Vermeulen¹  Jan Hauspy¹  Luc Verkinderen¹  Hilde Wuyts¹  Herman Van Der Mussele¹  Xuan B Trinh¹  Alessa Sugihara²  Gerda Verheyden¹  Peter A van Dam¹ 

[1] Breast Unit, Department of Gynecology, Sint-Augustinus Hospital, Oosterveldlaan 24, Wilrijk, Belgium;Medical student, University of Antwerp, Wilrijkstraat 10, Edegem, 2520, Belgium

关键词: Surgery;    Radiotherapy;    Quality control;    Clinical pathway;    Chemotherapy;    Breast cancer;   

Others  :  825851
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7819-11-70

 received in 2012-12-16, accepted in 2013-02-25,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Due to increasing the complexity of breast cancer treatment it is of paramount importance to develop structured care in order to avoid a chaotic and non-consistent management of patients. Clinical pathways, a result of the adaptation of the documents used in industrial quality management namely the Standard Operating Procedures, can be used to improve efficiency and quality of care. They also aim to re-centre the focus on the patient’s overall journey, rather than the contribution of each specialty or caring function independently.

Methods

The effect of the implementation and prospective systematic evaluation of a clinical care pathway for the management of patients with early breast cancer in a single breast unit is evaluated over a long time interval (between 2002 and 2010). Annual analysis of predefined clinical outcome measures, service indicators, team indicators, process indicators and financial indicators was performed. Pathway quality control meetings were organized at least once a year. Systematic feedback was given to the team members, and if necessary the pathway was adapted according to evidence based literature data and in house pathway related data in order to improve quality.

Results

The annual number of patients included in the pathway (289 vs. 390, P <0.01), proportion of patients with Tis-T1 tumors (42% vs. 58%, P <0.01), negative lymph nodes (44% vs. 58%, P <0.01) and no metastases at diagnosis (91.5% vs. 95.9%) has risen significantly between 2002 and 2010. Evolution of mandatory quality indicators defined by EUSOMA shows a significant improvement of quality of cancer care. Particularly, the proportion of patients having anti-hormonal therapy (84.8% vs. 97.4%, P = 0.002) and adjuvant chemotherapy according to the guidelines (72% vs. 95.6%, P = 0.028) increased dramatically. Patient satisfaction improved significantly (P <0.05). Progression free 4-year survival was significantly higher for all patients, for T1 tumors only and for T2-T4 tumors only, treated between 2006 to 2008 compared to between 1999 to 2002 and 2003 to 2005 (P = 0.006, P = 0.05, P = 0.06, respectively). Overall 4-year survival of the entire population treated between 2006 and 2008 was significantly better (P = 0.05).

Conclusions

Although the patient characteristics changed over the years due to better screening, this clinical pathway and regular audit of quality indicators for the treatment of patients with operable breast cancer proved to be important tools to improve the quality of care, patient satisfaction and outcome.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 van Dam et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, Kerr A: The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Enl J Med 2003, 26:2635-2645.
• [2]Garcia-Etienne CA, Tomatis M, Hell J, Friedrichs K, Kreienberg R, Denk A, Kiechle M, Lorenz-Salehi F, Kimmig R, Emons G, Danael M, Heyls V, Heindrichs U, Rageth CJ, Janni W, Marotti L, Turco MR, Ponti A: Mastectomy trends for early-stage breast cancer: a report from the EUSOMA multi-institutional European database. Eur J Cancer 2012, 48(13):1947-1956.
• [3]Vrijens F, Stordeur S, Beirens K, DeVriese S, Van Eycken E, Vlayen J: Effect of hospital volume on processes of care and 5 year survival after breast cancer: a population based study on 25.000 women. Breast 2012, 21(3):261-266.
• [4]Asch SM, Kerr EA, Keesey J, Adams JL, Setodji CM, Malik S, McGlynn EA: Who is at greatest risk for receiving poor-quality health care. N Engl J Med 2006, 354:1147-1156.
• [5]Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L: European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition – summary document. Ann Oncol 2008, 19:614-622.
• [6]De Blesser L, Depreitere R, de Wale K, Vanhaecht K, Vlayen J, Sermeus W: Defining pathways. J Nurs Manage 2006, 14:553-563.
• [7]Sermeus W, Vanhaeacht K: What are clinical care pathways? Acta Hosp 2002, 3:5-11.
• [8]Panella M, Marchisio S, Di Stanislao F: Reducing clinical variations with clinical pathways: do pathways work. Int J Qual Health Care 2003, 15:509-521.
• [9]De Vries M, van Weert JC, Jansen J, Lemmens VE, Maas HA: Step by step development of clinical care pathways for older cancer patients: necessary or desirable. Eur J Cancer 2007, 43:2170-2178.
• [10]Smith TJ, Hillner BE: Ensuring quality cancer care by the use of clinical practice guidelines and critical pathways. J Clin Oncol 2001, 19:2886-2897.
• [11]Senn HJ, Thurliman B, Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD, Coates AS: Comments on the St Gallen Consensus 2003 on the primary therapy of early breast cancer. Breast 2003, 12:569-582.
• [12]Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thurliman B, Senn HJ: Meeting highlights: international experts consensus of the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005. Ann Oncol 2005, 16:1569-1583.
• [13]Harbeck N, Jakesz R: St Gallen 2007: breast cancer treatment consensus report. Breast care 2007, 2:130-134.
• [14]Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber GN, Coates AS, Thurliman B, Senn HJ: Thresholds for therapies: highlight of the St Gallen International experts consensus of the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 2009, 20:1319-1329.
• [15]Gnant M, Harbeck N, Thomssen C: St Gallen 2011: summary of consensus discussion. Breast Care 2011, 6(2):136-141.
• [16]Fitzgibbons PL, Murphy DA, Hammond ET, Allred DC, Valenstein PN: Recommendations for validating estrogen and progesterone receptor immunohistochemistry assays. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010, 134:930-935.
• [17]Lopez-Guerrero JA, Navarro S, Noquera R, Almenar S, Pellin A, Vazquez C, Llombart-Bosh A: Histological tumor grade correlates with Her2/c-erbB-2 status in invasive breast cancer: a comparative analysis between immunohistochemical (CB11 clone and Herceptest), FISH and differential PCR procedure. Arkh Patol 2003, 65:50-55.
• [18]Greco M, Marotti L: EUSOMA Executive Committee. Background to EUSOMA guidelines and statement. Eur J Cancer 2006, 42:2200-2204.
• [19]Blamey RW, Cataliotti L: EUSOMA accreditation of breast units. Eur J Cancer 2006, 42:1331-1337.
• [20]Van de Mussele H, De Sitter J, Van Looy L: Improving the quality of electronic data registration for clinical pathway at the regional hospital Sint Augustinus Antwerp (Flanders-Belgium): a case study. Stru Health Technol Inform 2006, 122:587-590.
• [21]Brennan S: Care pathways and electronic patient record: an overview. J Integrated Care Pathways 2001, 5:39-43.
• [22]Sc C, Boldy D: Patients perceived quality of care in hospitals in the context of clinical pathways: development of an approach. J Qual Clin Pract 1999, 19:89-93.
• [23]Sermeus W, Vanhaecht K: The Belgian-Dutch clinical pathway network. J Integrated Care Pathways 2001, 5:10-14.
• [24]Kasahara Y, Tawaraya K: Implementation of a clinical pathway for breast cancer – effective tool for variations and changes in treatment methods. Japanse J Breast Cancer 2002, 17:395-401.
• [25]Santoso U, Iau PT, Lim J, Koh CS, Pang Y: The mastectomy clinical pathway: what has it achieved? Ann Acad Med Singapore 2002, 31:440-445.
• [26]Hwang TG, Wilkins EG, Lowery JC, Gentile J: Implementation and evaluation of a clinical pathway for TRAM breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000, 105:541-548.
• [27]Lee BT, Tobias AM, Yueh JH, Bar-Meir ED, Darrah LM, Guglielmi CL, Wood E, Carr JM, Moorman DW: Design and impact of an intraoperative pathway: a new operating room model for team-based practice. J Am Coll Surg 2008, 207:865-873.
• [28]Ryhanen AM, Rankinen S, Tulus K, Korvenranta H, Leino-Kilpi H: 62 breast cancer patients treatment related knwoledge after clinical pathway in the field of empowerment. Eur J Cancer 2010, 8S:76-77.
• [29]Geobel RH, Goebel MR: Clinical Pathways can Prevent Malpractice Lawsuits in Breast Cancer and Radiation Therapy. USA: ASCO; 1996. [ASCO annual meeting. Abstract No 923]
• [30]Gemm DH, Wiseman M: Strategic use of clinical pathways. J Oncol Practice 2011, 7:54-56.
• [31]Cheng SH, Wang J, Lin JL, Horng CF, Lu MC, Ach SM, Hilborne LH, Liu MC, Chen CM, Huang AT: Adherence to quality indicators and survival in patients with breast cancer. Medical Care 2009, 47:217-225.
• [32]Brucker SY, Schumacher C, Sohn C, Rezai M, Bamberg M, Wallwiener D: Benchmarking the quality of breast cancer care in a nationwide voluntary system: the first five-year results (2003–2007) from Germany as a proof of concept. BMC Cancer 2008, 8:358. BioMed Central Full Text
• [33]Del Turco RM, Ponti A, Bick U, Biganzoli L, Cserni G, Cutuli B, Decker T, Dietel M, Gentilini O, Kuehn T, Mano MP, Mantelinie P, Marotti L, Poortmans P, Rank F, Roe H, Scaffidi E, van der Hage JA, Viale G, Wells C, Welnicka-Jaskiewicz M, Wengstöm Y, Cataliotti L: Quality indicators in breast cancer care. Eur J Cancer 2010, 46:2344-2356.