Benchmarking der Ergebnisqualität am Onkologischen Schwerpunkt Stuttgart

Meisner, Christoph; Brinkmann, Friedhelm; Henke, D.; Junack, Cornelia; Faisst, Simone; Heidemann, E.

doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2011.05.014

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Gesundh. wesen (ZEFQ) (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2020.08.001 synthesis [20][21][22][23][24]. Table 1 presents the study characteristics, Table 2 presents the sample characteristics of the identified articles, and Table 3 presents the findings of the qualitative synthesis and the author query.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five programs from Europe were identified that met the inclusion criteria and allowed the collection of PROMs in routine cancer care to monitor (or detect changes) symptoms and function and that used identical data collection infrastructures across centers, to make the comparison of outcomes across providers possible, at least theoretically. In practice, it was often not clear whether and how the latter was done or planned at all, except for the example from Germany [21] which had benchmarking as its focus. Ongoing approaches to provider comparison like the TNGR [12,25] or EDIUM [26] are too early in the process to be included in the review, and no results have been published at time of the database search.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PROM assessment was performed at very heterogeneous time points, for example ''annually'' or ''prior to each consultation''. In two instances, no ''baseline'' PROMs were collected, as treatment-naïve patients were surveyed, but patients were surveyed in one program ''within three months of diagnosis'' [20] or the point of initial survey was not explicitly mentioned [21]. Since these programs were nevertheless useful for monitoring patients and to investigate events following interventions these studies were considered eligible for the review.…”

Section: Qualitative Synthesis Of Program Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Implementation of patient-reported outcome assessment in routine cancer care: A systematic review of multicentric programs in Europe

Scheibe

Herrmann

Schmitt

et al. 2020

Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: To give an overview of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) programs in routine cancer care that allow for both major purposes of PROM assessment: 1) monitoring of an individual patient's outcome to assist treatment decision making, and 2) use in quality improvement initiatives including the benchmarking of providers. We synthesize information on program elements like the mode of assessment and questionnaire used, as well as information relevant for adaptation following a PDCA scheme. Method: We carried out a systematic literature research in the databases PubMed and EMBASE using MeSH terms and keywords related to PROM assessment in routine cancer care to identify eligible studies published between January 2003 and November 2018 (PROSPERO reg. no. CRD42019141402). We included studies in which PROM assessment programs had been reported as being implemented in clinical practice as well as collected multicentrically with at least one site in Europe and in which PROMs had been collected before and at least once after intervention. Study authors were queried to verify or correct the program elements extracted and merged during the review. Study quality assessment was not done, since it is not expedient for the objective of this review. Results: Overall, 5,545 unique references were identified, 5,416 of which were excluded after the screening of titles and abstracts. Of the 29 references assessed, five programs were identified and included in the synthesis. The programs included those from Germany, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK, and patients with different cancer types and tumor stages, which used paper-based or purely electronic PROM assessment. Discussion and conclusion: Few reports have so far been published on PROM programs that allow for both the monitoring of an individual patient's outcome and use in quality improvement initiatives. The studies revealed relevant information on existing PROM programs and gave valuable insight into issues that need to be considered when setting up such an infrastructure. Some critical issues, however, were hardly addressed, among them costs, staff resources and methods of reporting and responding.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Qualitative Synthesis Of Program Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implementation of patient-reported outcome assessment in routine cancer care: A systematic review of multicentric programs in Europe

Scheibe

Herrmann

Schmitt

et al. 2020

Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dabei konnten die Patientenvariablen Alter, Geschlecht und Krankheitsstadium als zentrale Einflussgrößen statistisch kontrolliert werden. Die verbleibenden Unterschiede zwischen den Kliniken in den Überlebensraten dienten diesen als Diskussionsgrundlage über "best practices" [35].…”

Section: Methodeunclassified

Vergleiche zwischen sozialtherapeutischen Einrichtungen

Suhling¹,

Guéridon²

2016

Forens Psychiatr Psychol Kriminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The penal system and treatment programs, such as social therapy need to be evaluated. This is required by every relevant law that has come into force since the reform of the German federal system in 2006. Treatment and penal research would benefit if conventional designs comparing treated and untreated people, were supplemented by comparisons between organizations or organizational units with respect to success variables. This strategy, known as benchmarking in other sectors of society, has rarely been used in German penal research and is applied to social therapeutic treatment in the present article. Using data from a case documentation system, social therapy units in Lower Saxony were compared with respect to the allowance of privileges (temporary leave), treatment duration and employment status at the time of release. Multilevel models were applied. In all of the three dependent variables, distinct differences were found between the units that cannot solely be accounted for by the individual characteristics of the treated prisoners.Keywords Prisons · Evaluation · Social therapy · Benchmarking · Multilevel models Evaluation hat viele Facetten. In der kaum noch über-schaubaren Literatur zur systematischen Bewertung von Programmen und Maßnahmen mit wissenschaftlichen Methoden findet man eine Vielzahl von Unterscheidungskriterien, Einteilungsschemata und Klassifikationsansätzen

show abstract

“…Ob Benchmarking in der deutschen Gesundheitsversorgung helfen kann, durch einen systematischen kollegialen Erfahrungsaustausch zu definierten medizinischen oder pflegerischen Versorgungsthemen eine Verbesserung der Ergebnisqualität zu erreichen, sollte in den 10 vom deutschen Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (BMG) geförderten Modellvorhaben erprobt werden. Über die Ergebnisse der einzelnen Verbundprojekte geben die Kurzberichte in diesem Heft sowie anderweitige Publikationen Auskunft [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Ziele der ebenfalls vom BMG geför-derten Begleitstudie zum Modellvorhaben sollten sein, verallgemeinerbare Erkenntnisse zu Benchmarking in der Patientenversorgung herauszuarbeiten und aus den Projektmethodiken und Projektergebnissen Empfehlungen für zukünf-tige Benchmarking-Verfahren im Gesundheitswesen zu generieren.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Benchmarking in der Gesundheitsversorgung: Fazit und Empfehlungen

Geraedts

Selbmann

2011

Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benchmarking der Ergebnisqualität am Onkologischen Schwerpunkt Stuttgart

Cited by 6 publications

References 4 publications

Implementation of patient-reported outcome assessment in routine cancer care: A systematic review of multicentric programs in Europe

Implementation of patient-reported outcome assessment in routine cancer care: A systematic review of multicentric programs in Europe

Vergleiche zwischen sozialtherapeutischen Einrichtungen

Benchmarking in der Gesundheitsversorgung: Fazit und Empfehlungen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About