No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundWhile research on individual health literacy is steadily increasing, less attention has been paid to the context of care that may help to increase the patient’s ability to navigate health care or to compensate for their limited health literacy. In 2012, Brach et al. introduced the concept of health literate health care organizations (HLHOs) to describe the organizational context of care. This paper presents our effort in developing and validating an HLHO instrument.MethodTen items were developed to represent the ten attributes of HLHO (HLHO-10) based on a literature review, an expert workshop, a focus group discussion, and qualitative interviews. The instrument was applied in a key informant survey in 51 German hospitals as part of a larger study on patient information and training needs (PIAT-study). Item properties were analyzed and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the instrument’s unidimensionality. To investigate the instrument’s predictive validity, a multilevel analysis was performed that used the HLHO-10 score to predict the adequacy of information provided to 1,224 newly-diagnosed breast cancer patients treated at the sample hospitals.ResultsCronbach’s α of the resulting scale was 0.89. CFA verified the one-factor structure after allowing for the correlation for four pairs of error terms. In the multilevel model, HLHO-10 significantly predicted the adequacy of information as perceived by patients.ConclusionThe instrument has satisfactory reliability and validity. It provides a useful tool to assess the degree to which health care organizations help patients to navigate, understand, and use information and services. Further validation should include participant observation in health care organizations and a sample that is not limited to breast cancer care.

Purpose The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Methods The process of updating the S3 guideline dating from 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines which were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and the results of a systematic search of literature databases and the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point to develop recommendations and statements which were modified and graded in a structured consensus procedure. Recommendations Part 1 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the screening, diagnosis and follow-up care of breast cancer. The importance of mammography for screening is confirmed in this updated version of the guideline and forms the basis for all screening. In addition to the conventional methods used to diagnose breast cancer, computed tomography (CT) is recommended for staging in women with a higher risk of recurrence. The follow-up concept includes suggested intervals between physical, ultrasound and mammography examinations, additional high-tech diagnostic procedures, and the determination of tumor markers for the evaluation of metastatic disease.

Purpose The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Method The process of updating the S3 guideline published in 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines. They were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and with the results of a systematic search of literature databases followed by the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point and used them to develop suggestions for recommendations and statements, which were then modified and graded in a structured consensus process procedure. Recommendations Part 2 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the therapy of primary, recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Loco-regional therapies are de-escalated in the current guideline. In addition to reducing the safety margins for surgical procedures, the guideline also recommends reducing the radicality of axillary surgery. The choice and extent of systemic therapy depends on the respective tumor biology. New substances are becoming available, particularly to treat metastatic breast cancer.

Background: Over the last decades numerous initiatives have been set up that aim at translating the best available medical knowledge and treatment into clinical practice. The inherent complexity of the programs and discrepancies in the terminology used make it difficult to appreciate each of them distinctly and compare their specific strengths and weaknesses. To allow comparison and stimulate dialogue between different programs, we in this paper provide an overview of the German Cancer Society certification program for multidisciplinary cancer centers that was established in 2003. Main body:In the early 2000s the German Cancer Society assessed the available information on quality of cancer care in Germany and concluded that there was a definite need for a comprehensive, transparent and evidencebased system of quality assessment and control. This prompted the development and implementation of a voluntary cancer center certification program that was promoted by scientific societies, health-care providers, and patient advocacy groups and based on guidelines of the highest quality level (S3). The certification system structures the entire process of care from prevention to screening and multidisciplinary treatment of cancer and places multidisciplinary teams at the heart of this program. Within each network of providers, the quality of care is documented using tumor-specific quality indicators. The system started with breast cancer centers in 2003 and colorectal cancer centers in 2006. In 2017, certification systems are established for the majority of cancers. Here we describe the rationale behind the certification program, its history, the development of the certification requirements, the process of data collection, and the certification process as an example for the successful implementation of a voluntary but powerful system to ensure and improve quality of cancer care. Conclusion: Since 2003, over 1 million patients had their primary tumors treated in a certified center. There are now over 1200 sites for different tumor entities in four countries that have been certified in accordance with the program and transparently report their results from multidisciplinary treatment for a substantial proportion of cancers. This led to a fundamental change in the structure of cancer care in Germany and neighboring countries within one decade.

No abstract