Objective The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility and potential of the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) for identifying adverse events (AEs) in different specialties in German hospitals. Methods A total of 120 patient records were randomly selected from two surgical and one neurosurgery departments of three university hospitals in Germany for a period of 2 months per department between January and July 2017. The records were reviewed using an adaptation of the German version of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement GTT. Results Thirty-nine records (32.5%) contained at least one AE. A total of 53 AEs were found in these 39 records. The incidences of AEs were 18.9% and 35.9% in the two surgical departments and 45.3% in neurosurgery. This corresponded to AE rates of 25.5 to 72.1 per 1000 patient-days and from 25.0 to 60.0 per 100 admissions across the three departments. A total of 71.7% of all identified AEs resulted in temporary harm (category E), 26.4% in temporary harm, requiring prolonged hospitalization (category F), and 1.9% in permanent patient harm. We also identified practical challenges, such as the necessary adaptation of the GTT relative to the respective department. Conclusions The application of the GTT is feasible and represents an effective instrument for quality measurement when adapted to the departmental specifics. The trigger detection with the GTT is a valuable addition for proactive analyses of high-risk processes.

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Data on institutional structures of sarcoma care in Germany are scarce. The utilization of an interdisciplinary tumor board (IDTB) is an essential part of modern cancer care. We investigated to which extent and when IDTB are used in sarcoma care. We hypothesized that IDTB before treatment initiation were used more often at certified cancer centers and at high-volume centers and that IDTB utilization increased over time. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> From 2017 to 2020 we conducted a prospective cohort study, undertaking major efforts to include the whole spectrum of sarcoma treatment facilities. To analyze potential predictors of IDTB utilization, we calculated multivariable logistic regressions. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Patients and survivors (<i>n</i> = 1,309) from 39 study centers (22 tertiary referral hospitals, 9 other hospitals, and 8 office-based practices) participated; 88.3% of the patients were discussed at some stage of their disease in an IDTB (56.1% before treatment, 78% after therapy, and 85.9% in metastatic disease). Hypotheses were confirmed regarding the utilization of IDTB in certified cancer centers (vs. all others: OR = 5.39; 95% CI 3.28–8.85) and the time of diagnosis (2018/2019 vs. until 2013: OR = 4.95; 95% CI 2.67–9.21). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b><i></i>Our study adds to the evidence regarding the institutional structures of sarcoma care in Germany. Utilization of a tumor board before therapy seems to be in an implementation process that is making progress but is far from complete. Certification is a possible tool to accelerate this development.

Background: Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) substantially affects cancer patients due to adverse outcomes and disruptions in cancer care. Recent studies have indicated the additional stress and anxiety burden arising from the pandemic and impairing quality of life in this vulnerable group of patients. However, patients with cancer represent a heterogenous group. Therefore, we conducted a study on patients with pancreatic cancer, requiring demanding surgical interventions and chemotherapy regimens due to its aggressive tumor biology, to explore the pandemic’s impact on quality of life within this homogenous cohort. Methods: In a descriptive observational study, the quality of life of patients who had undergone pancreatic surgery for tumor resection at our institution between 2014 and the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 was assessed. For HRQoL measurement, we used the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), comparing their situation before the pandemic and since its beginning. An additional self-developed questionnaire was applied to assess the life circumstances during the pandemic. Results: Our cohort included 26 patients. Scores from the survey in HRQoL revealed no significant changes over time between before and during the pandemic. A medium deterioration in HRQoL was apparent in social functioning, as well as a small deterioration in role functioning and emotional functioning. Worries concerning a potential impact of COVID-19 on personal health were expressed. Psychological limitations in QoL were mainly attributed to the pandemic, whereas physical limitations in QoL were rather associated with the underlying disease of pancreatic cancer. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic is causing considerable social and emotional distress among pancreatic cancer patients. These patients will benefit from psychological support during the pandemic and beyond. Long-time survivors of pancreatic cancer, such as those included in our cohort, appear to have improved resilience facing the psychosocial challenges of the pandemic. For pancreatic cancer, surgical care is considered the cornerstone of treatment. Prolonged delays in healthcare cause serious damage to mental and physical health. To date, the longer-term clinical consequences are not known and can only be estimated. The potential tragic outcome for the vulnerable group of pancreatic cancer patients highlights the urgency of timely healthcare decisions to be addressed in the future.