Guideline-based Quality Indicators Research Articles

Development and Update of Guideline-based Quality Indicators in Lung Cancer

Abstract Background In 2022, an update of the German lung cancer guideline, first published in 2010 and revised in 2018, was released. This article aims to show the process of updating, developing, and implementing guideline-based quality indicators (QI) into the certification system for lung cancer centers (LCC). Methods A multidisciplinary and interprofessional working group revised the guideline QIs from 2018 using the strong recommendations of the guideline update, a systematic review for QIs, and the results of the implemented QIs from LCC. Results For 4 out of 8 indicators from the 2018 guideline, the LCC showed an improved implementation of the requirements in the last 3 years (2018–2020). For 3 indicators, the median of the results was constant at a very high level (≥96% or 100%). Only the “adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy” indicator showed declining values between 2018 and 2020. The target values and plausibility limits were well achieved by LCC. After updating the guideline, one QI from 2018 was not included in the new QI set due to the small denominator population. Based on the new strong recommendations, 8 new QIs were defined. From the QI set of the guideline update, 13 of 15 indicators (7 since 2018 and 6 from 2022 on) were adopted into the certification program. Conclusions The guideline recommendations are implemented by LCC at a high level. The process presented confirms the successful implementation of the so-called quality cycle in oncology. The QIs developed by the German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO) are adopted by the certification program. The implementation of the QI is measured in LCC, evaluated by the German Cancer Society (DKG), and reflected back to the GGPO. The “real world” data have led to the deletion of one QI and show a high implementation of most QIs in LCC.

Implementation of quality indicators for vulvar cancer in gynaecological cancer centres certified by the German Cancer Society (DKG)

PurposeIn 2018, the first guideline-based quality indicators (QI) for vulvar cancer were implemented in the data-sheets of certified gynaecological cancer centres. The certification process includes guideline-based QIs as a fundamental component. These indicators are specifically designed to evaluate the level of care provided within the centres. This article aims to give an overview of the developing process of guideline based-QIs for women with vulvar cancer and presents the QIs results from the certified gynaecological cancer centres.MethodsThe QIs were derived in a standardized multiple step process during the update of the 2015 S2k guideline “Diagnosis, Therapy, and Follow-Up Care of Vulvar Cancer and its Precursors” (registry-number: no. 015/059) and are based on strong recommendations.ResultsIn total, there are eight guideline-based QIs for vulvar cancer. Four QIs are part of the certification process. In the treatment year 2021, 2.466 cases of vulvar cancer were treated in 177 centres. The target values in the centres for pathology reports on tumour resection and lymphadenectomy as well as sentinel lymph nodes have increased since the beginning of the certification process and have been above 90% over the past three treatment years (2019–2021).DiscussionQIs based on strong guideline recommendations, play a crucial role in measuring and allowing to quantify essential aspects of patient care. By utilizing QIs, centres are able to identify areas for process optimization and draw informed conclusions. Over the years the quality of treatment of vulvar cancer patients measured by the QIs was improved. The certification system is continuously reviewed to enhance patient care even further by using the outcomes from QIs revaluation.

Implementation of guideline-based quality indicators in the DKG certification system

Implementation of guideline-based quality indicators in the DKG certification system

Implementation and update of guideline-derived quality indicators for cervical cancer in gynecological cancer centers certified by the German Cancer Society (DKG)

PurposeIn 2008, the first gynecological cancer centres were certified by the German Cancer Society (DKG). Guideline-based quality Indicators (QIs) are a core element of the certification process. These QI are defined to assess the quality of care within the centres and can serve to measure the implementation of guideline recommendation. This article aims to give an overview of the developing and updating process of guideline based-QIs for women with cervical cancer and presents the QI results from the certified gynaecological cancer centres.MethodsThe QIs are derived in a multiple step review process and then implemented in the certification data sheet of the certified centres. The first set of QIs created in 2014 was revised in the update process of the S3-Guideline in 2020. QIs are based on strong recommendations of the evidence-based “Guideline for patients with Cervical Carcinoma” (registry-number: 032/033OL).ResultsIn total, there are nine guideline-based QIs for cervical cancer. Four QIs are part of the certification process. In the treatment year 2020, 3.522 cases of cervical cancer were treated in 169 centers. The target values for the four QIs were met in at least 95% of the certified centers. In the guideline update in 2020, a new QI was added to the set of QIs “Complete pathological report on conization findings” and the QI “Exenteration” was removed.ConclusionsQIs derived from strong recommendations of a guideline are an important tool to make essential parts of patient’s care measurable and enable the centers to draw consequences in process optimization. Over the years, the number of certified centers has grown, and the quality was improved. The certification systems is under constant revision to further improve patient’s care in the future, based on the results of the QI re-evaluation.

Adherence to quality indicators in chronic myeloid leukemia care: results from a population-based study in The Netherlands

Suboptimal guideline adherence in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) care is associated with worse treatment outcomes. Current study focused on adherence to seven quality indicators (QIs) based on the European Leukemia Network guideline (one diagnostic, one therapeutic, and five monitoring indicators). Data were obtained from population-based registries in the Netherlands of 405 newly diagnosed chronic phase CML patients between January 2008 and April 2013. Compliance rates regarding diagnostic and therapeutic indicator were 83% and 78%, respectively. Monitoring indicators rates were lower: 21–27% for indicators concerning the first year and 58% and 62% for the second and third year, respectively. Noncompliance occurred mostly due to non-timely monitoring. Twenty cases did not comply with any indicator, 6% complied with all indicators. After adjustment for age, overall survival rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Adherence to guideline-based QIs was suboptimal. This demonstrates the evidence-practice gap, shows room for improvement and underscores the need for real-world data.

Adherence to guideline-based quality indicators in early pregnancy care in hospitals with and without an early pregnancy assessment unit

Research questionHow do hospitals with and without an early pregnancy assessment unit (EPAU) adhere to guideline-based quality indicators for an EPAU relating to logistics, access to services and quality of early pregnancy care? DesignA qualitative interview study assessing the adherence to 19 quality indicators in four hospitals with an EPAU and four hospitals without an EPAU in the Netherlands. For each quality indicator, a ratio for guideline adherence was calculated. Overall non-adherence per hospital was defined as less than 100% adherence to the 19 quality indicators. ResultsNon-adherence was seen in three indicators (3/19 [16%]) for hospitals with an EPAU and in five indicators (5/19 [26%]) for hospitals without an EPAU. A standard digital system for the registration of ultrasound findings and clear explanation of all treatment options was present in all hospitals with an EPAU and in three hospitals without an EPAU. Certified ultrasound training for working staff members was absent in all hospitals. A discrete waiting area was present in one hospital with an EPAU compared with none of the hospitals without an EPAU. Self-referrals from women with a previous ectopic pregnancy was accepted in one hospital with and in one hospital without an EPAU. ConclusionsNon-adherence to guideline-based quality indicators for an EPAU was about the same for hospitals with and without an EPAU in the Netherlands.

Guideline-Based Quality Indicators for Kidney and Bladder Cancer in Germany: Development and Implementation

Introduction: As part of the development of the evidence-based (S3) clinical practice guidelines for kidney and bladder cancer by the German Guideline Program in Oncology, quality indicators (QIs) were defined to measure the quality of care. Based on these guidelines and QIs, the German Cancer Society (DKG) developed two new certification systems. The aim of this article is to show the process of development and implementation of QIs in certified cancer centres. Methods: Based on strong recommendations of each guideline and an additional systematic literature review for national and international QIs, two sets of QIs were derived in a multistep standardized approach. These QIs were implemented in the centres in certification data sheets to measure their outcomes. First results of treatment years 2018 and 2019 are available. Results: The final sets include 9 QIs for kidney cancer and 12 QIs for bladder cancer. Two-thirds of the QIs were transferred to the data sheets. In 2018 and 2019, the results of all but one QI are within the plausibility limits. From 2020 on, they are replaced by stricter target values that will challenge centres to improve their outcomes. Conclusions: Guideline-derived QIs make relevant aspects of patient care measurable and consequently improvable. The first QI results are encouraging. However, the DKG certification system and the methods of measuring quality are under ongoing development. Systematic QI implementation and evaluation may help to generate broader databases and thus expand knowledge.

Methodischer Standard für die Entwicklung von Qualitätsindikatoren im Rahmen von S3-Leitlinien – Ergebnisse einer strukturierten Konsensfindung

BackgroundRecommendations of evidence- and formally consensus-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) represent a valuable source of quality indicators (QIs). Nevertheless, a standardized methodological procedure for developing QIs in the context of CPGs does not yet exist in Germany for all CPGs. For this reason, a methodological standard for the guideline-based development of QIs (QI Standard) was developed based on a structured consensus process involving multiple key stakeholders. MethodsThe proposed content of the QI Standard was derived from evidence, drawing upon results of reviews and qualitative studies, and considered German manuals for guideline-based QI development of two guideline programs. A multi-perspective consensus panel, broadly representing key stakeholders from the German healthcare system with expertise in CPGs and/or quality management, was nominated to vote on recommendations for guideline-based development of QIs. The iterative, structured consensus process included a two-stage online survey based on the Delphi method (“preliminary voting”) and a moderated final stakeholder conference where all those recommendations were definitely included in the QI Standard that received approval of more than 75 % (consensus criterion) of the consensus panel. ResultsBased on the agreed QI Standard, the QI development process starts with a criteria-based selection of „potential” QIs which – in case of adoption – are published in CPGs as „preliminary” QIs and can achieve the status “final” after successful testing. The QI Standard is composed of a total of 30 recommendations, which are allocated to six areas: A) preparatory work steps for the guideline-based recommendation of QIs, B) QI development group and cooperation with the CPG group, C) development of potential QIs, D) critical appraisal of potential QIs, E) formal adoption and publication as well as F) piloting/testing of preliminary QIs and conversion into final QIs. DiscussionBefore the QI Standard can be recommended for implementation in future CPGs, it should have been successfully tested in selected German CPG projects. In addition to methodological requirements for the QI development, it must be ensured that guideline groups have adequate resources for the implementation of the QI Standard. ConclusionBy using the QI Standard, scientifically sound and healthcare-relevant QIs can be expected.

International experiences in the development and implementation of guideline-based quality indicators: a qualitative study

ObjectivesEvidence-based clinical guidelines play an important role in healthcare and can be a valuable source for quality indicators (QIs). However, the link between guidelines and QI is often neglected and...

Quality assurance in melanoma care: guideline-based quality indicators for melanoma - implementation, evaluation and update process.

In 2018, an update of the German evidence-based (S3) guidelines "Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Melanoma" first issued in 2013 was published under the auspices of the German Guideline Program in Oncology. The update also included a revision of existing guideline-based quality indicators (QIs). Using a standardized multi-step process, the guideline-derived QIs were revised by a multidisciplinary, interprofessional working group based on the strong (level A) recommendations contained in the guideline update as well as on a systematic literature search for international indicators and on the outcomes of existing QIs as reported by certified German skin cancer centers. Based on the original set of twelve guideline-based QIs agreed upon in 2013, the working group developed an updated set containing nine indicators. Four QIs were kept unchanged; two were modified; two were removed; and three new QIs were added. Unlike 2013, the working group was now able to incorporate the outcomes of QIs previously implemented at the various skin cancer centers. Close cooperation between guideline group and certification commission allows for the implementation of guideline-based QIs in cancer care. Measured outcomes form the basis for updating both the guidelines and the QI development process. They provide information about the care of cancer patients in a real-world setting as well as on guideline adherence and the feasibility of QIs themselves. This is a dynamic process that can be described in a transparent manner and that requires regular updating.

Guideline-based quality indicators for early pregnancy assessment units

What valid guideline-based quality indicators can measure quality of care in early pregnancy assessment units (EPAU)? The systematic RAND-modified Delphi method was used to develop an indicator set from four evidence-based guidelines. An international expert panel was assembled to extract recommendations from these guidelines to establish quality indicators. A total of 119 recommendations were extracted. Eleven recommendations received a high median score and top five score above the 75th percentile and were selected as key recommendations. The expert panel reassessed 15 high score recommendations and top five score between the 50th and 75th percentile as well as one high score recommendation without consensus. Eight of these 16 recommendations were selected in the second round as key recommendations. The key recommendations were formulated into a set of 19 quality indicators, summarized as follows: women referred to an EPAU could be seen within 24 h and receive a clear explanation on treatment options; designated senior staff members could be responsible for the unit and staff could have had ultrasound training; protocols could be available for daily practice covering all treatment options for miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy; and an EPAU could have access to urine pregnancy testing and serum HCG assays. Nineteen quality indicators to measure early pregnancy care provided by EPAU were identified.

Entwicklung leitlinienbasierter Qualitätsindikatoren: eine qualitative Studie zu Barrieren und förderlichen Faktoren aus der Sicht von S3-LeitlinienautorInnen

BackgroundEvidence-based and formally consensus-based clinical practice guidelines (S3-CPGs) are a valuable source for the development of quality indicators (QIs) in Germany. While deriving QIs from guideline recommendations is a mandatory part of the development of S3-CPGs within the National Program for Disease Management Guidelines (DMGP) and the German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO), there is no such obligation in the guideline program of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) (MS program). Despite that, several S3-CPGs in the MS program have been published with QIs in the last years while some DMGP and one GGPO S3 guidelines have failed to meet this requirement. From the perspective of the guideline authors of all three mentioned programs, the present qualitative study examined why S3-CPGs do or do not contain QIs and explored the factors perceived by authors as either facilitating or hampering in the QI development process. MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with authors of 22 S3-CPGs, 11 of which represented guidelines containing QIs and 11 of which represented guidelines without QIs. Authors of guidelines containing QIs (n=11) were asked about the perceived decisive reasons for formulating QIs and about facilitators and barriers during the QI development process. Authors of guidelines without QIs (n=11) gave reasons for not formulating QIs. Interviews were analyzed using structuring qualitative content analysis. ResultsWithin the MS program, not formulating QIs was mainly attributed to the lack of a mandatory requirement and to insufficient funding of guideline projects. Amongst DMGP authors, a low priority of QI development prevailed, which was, for example, due to already existing QIs or to their lacking implementation. In the GGPO guideline examined, not formulating QIs was due to the guideline topic (prevention) – for this topic, there was a lack of suitable evidence and data sources. If QIs were developed, the most important facilitating factor in the development process, across all programs, was the methodological support provided by the guideline program. Important hampering factors included the additional time required for QI development and concerns regarding the implementation of many potential QIs, especially due to a lack of data availability. DiscussionFor regular development of QIs within S3-CPG projects, the incorporation of such a requirement in the guideline program is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition. Other pivotal factors include systematic methodological support, adequate financial and staff resources and the perceived meaningfulness and relevance of guideline-based QI development, measured in terms of the actual implementation of already existing QIs. ConclusionThe study reveals starting points for measures to strengthen the consideration of QI development in German S3-CPG projects, especially within the MS program. Without substantial structural changes, especially of the resources of guideline groups, and without an overall concept covering the entire process from QI development to QI implementation, guideline-based QI development will remain heavily dependent on the (self-)motivation of guideline groups.

Developing guideline-based quality indicators: assessing gaps in pain management practice.

In this article, the authors discuss a multiphase approach for developing quality indicators based on pain practice guidelines, and the challenges associated with the process. The presentation is based on previously published reporting standards for guideline-based quality indicators. The following steps of the indicator development process were undertaken: topic selection; guideline selection; extraction of recommendations; quality indicator selection and practice test. Eleven practice guidelines were reviewed for quality, and three high-quality guidelines were compared for pertinent recommendations. From these three guidelines, 12 recommendations were extracted and judged appropriate to examine the practice gap for nursing students and clinicians on an oncology and palliative care unit. Quality indicators were then identified by a consensus process, resulting in 24 discrete indicators that were included in the practice test. Quality indicators can be used to examine gaps in pain management practice, and to evaluate change after guideline implementation. However, their development can be challenging, and guideline developers could facilitate uptake of guidelines by including clear, relevant quality indicators as part of guideline creation and presentation.

Evaluating Adherence to Guideline-Based Quality Indicators for Postpartum Hemorrhage Care in the Netherlands Using Video Analysis.

To assess adherence to the national postpartum hemorrhage guideline and Managing Obstetric Emergencies and Trauma course instructions and its determinants in the Netherlands. A prospective observational multicenter study in 16 Dutch hospitals analyzing data from medical records of 398 women at high risk for postpartum hemorrhage, of which 293 were supplemented with data from prospective video recordings. Adherence to guideline-based quality indicators for prevention, management, and organization of postpartum hemorrhage care was measured. Indicators for prevention and management of postpartum hemorrhage were categorized according to the amount of blood loss (less than 500, greater than 500, greater than 1,000, and greater than 2,000 mL). Overall, a lack of adherence was observed, particularly for the actions to be undertaken with blood loss greater than 1,000 mL (69 patients). Actions were not or only taken in a later stage when the blood loss had already increased to greater than 2,000 mL (21 patients). In almost 41% (n=119/293) of the deliveries, no active management was performed, and in almost 80% (n=89/112), vital signs were not monitored (blood loss greater than 500 mL) or monitored too late with respect to blood loss. The video recordings showed that in general the actual care given was considerably underreported in medical records. Postpartum hemorrhage care in the hospitals was well organized. Fifteen hospitals had a local postpartum hemorrhage protocol, and in 12 hospitals, team trainings were organized. Regarding the determinants, high-risk patient identification and type of hospital (university vs nonuniversity hospital) were mostly associated with better adherence. This study showed low adherence to the guideline-based quality indicators, indicating a problem with Dutch quality care. The unique video observations provided additional, valuable information at which level improvement can be made. A tailor-made implementation strategy to improve quality of postpartum hemorrhage care has been developed. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00928863.

Guideline-based quality indicators\u2014a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines: protocol for a systematic review

BackgroundQuality indicators (QIs) are used in assessing the quality of healthcare. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are relevant sources for generating QIs. In this context, QIs are important tools to assess the implementation of guideline recommendations. However, the methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development vary considerably.In Germany, the guideline classification scheme of the AWMF (German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies) differentiates between S1-, S2k-, S2e-, and S3-CPGs depending on the methodological approach. Thus, S3-CPGs are consensus- and evidence-based CPGs and have the highest methodological standard in Germany. An analysis of the status quo of reported QIs in S3-CPGs found 35 current S3-CPGs, which report 372 different QIs.Currently, there is no gold standard for the development of guideline-based QIs. To our knowledge, no studies have investigated to what extent guideline-based QIs from different CPGs that are related to the same topic are consistent. The objective of this study is to compare guideline-based QIs and their underlying methodological approaches of German S3-CPGs with those of topic-related international CPGs.MethodsBased on the previous identified German S3-CPGs (n = 35), which report quality indicators, we will conduct systematic searches in the guidelines databases of G-I-N (Guidelines International Network) and NGC (National Guideline Clearinghouse) to identify international CPGs matching the topics of the S3-CPGs. If necessary, we will search additionally the websites of the particular CPG providers for separate documents with regard to QIs. We will include evidence-based CPGs which report QIs. Reported QIs as well as methods of development and the rationale for QIs will be extracted and compared with those of the S3-CPGs.DiscussionThis study will be part of the project “Systematic analysis of the translation of guideline recommendations into quality indicators and development of an evidence- and consensus-based standard,” supported by the German Research Association (DFG). The results of this analysis will feed into a subsequent qualitative study, which will consist of structured interviews with developers of international CPGs. Further, the results will be considered in a consensus study on standards of the translation of guideline recommendations into quality indicators in Germany.

Centralization of Penile Cancer Management in the United States: A Combined Analysis of the American Board of Urology and National Cancer Data Base

To assess the potential benefit of centralization of care in penile cancer. Centralization of care in other disease processes standardizes treatment and improves outcomes. Because penile cancer is a rare malignancy with unchanged mortality rates over the last two decades, we hypothesize that there may be a benefit to centralization. We identified surgeon, patient, and hospital characteristics captured by the National Cancer Data Base (1998-2012) and American Board of Urology case logs (2003-2013) for all penile cancer cases and procedures. Differences in patient demographics, stage of disease, referral patterns, and surgical quality indicators were assessed between academic and community hospitals. Using case logs to evaluate the distribution of penile cancer care, we found that only 4.1% of urologists performed a penile surgery and 1.5% performed a lymph node dissection (LND). Academic centers treated higher-stage cancers and saw more cases/year than community centers, suggesting informal centralization. Two guideline-based quality indicators demonstrated no difference in use of penile-sparing surgery but a higher likelihood of having an LND performed at an academic center (48.4% vs 26.6%). The total lymph node yield was significantly greater at academic centers (18.5 vs 12.5). Regression modeling demonstrated a 2.29 increased odds of having an LND at an academic center. Our data provide the first evidence for centralization of penile cancer in the US. At the time of diagnosis, equal number of patients is treated with penile-sparing surgery but there is greater use of LND and higher lymph node yield at academic centers. Ultimately, longer follow-up is necessary to determine if this improves survival of patients with penile cancer.

Developing 'high impact' guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process.

BackgroundQuality indicators (QIs) are an important tool for improving clinical practice and are increasingly being developed from evidence-based guideline recommendations. We aimed to identify, select and apply guideline recommendations to develop a set of QIs to measure the implementation of evidence-based practice using routinely recorded clinical data in United Kingdom (UK) primary care.MethodsWe reviewed existing national clinical guidelines and QIs and used a four-stage consensus development process to derive a set of ‘high impact’ QIs relevant to primary care based upon explicit prioritisation criteria. We then field tested the QIs using remotely extracted, anonymised patient records from 89 randomly sampled primary care practices in the Yorkshire region of England.ResultsOut of 2365 recommendations and QIs originally reviewed, we derived a set of 18 QIs (5 single, 13 composites – comprising 2–9 individual recommendations) for field testing. QIs predominantly addressed chronic disease management, in particular diabetes, cardiovascular and renal disease, and included both processes and outcomes of care. Field testing proved to be critical for further refinement and final selection.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated a rigorous and transparent methodology to develop a set of high impact, evidence-based QIs for primary care from clinical guideline recommendations. While the development process was successful in developing a limited set of QIs, it remains challenging to derive robust new QIs from clinical guidelines in the absence of established systems for routine, structured recording of clinical care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0350-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Guideline-based development of quality indicators for prevention and management of postpartum hemorrhage.

To systematically develop a set of guideline-based quality indicators for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) as a tool to measure guideline adherence in actual PPH care. A Rand-modified Delphi procedure was used to systematically achieve consensus among a panel of 22 experts on PPH care on recommendations extracted from evidence-based guidelines, Managing-Obstetrics-Emergencies-Trauma (MOET) instructions and international literature. The selected recommendations were individually rated on health gain (prevention of maternal mortality and morbidity) and overall efficiency by the expert panel. Subsequently, consensus about the most important recommendations to measure quality of PPH care among the panel members was reached, followed by a final approval. Last, definition of the final set by critical appraisal of the recommendations regarding measurability took place. The main outcome measure was a set of valid quality indicators for prevention and management of PPH. From the 69 extracted recommendations, 50 were selected and translated into 22 quality indicators on professional performance (n = 17) and organization of PPH care (n = 5). The professional performance indicators covered all fields of PPH care, such as prevention (n = 2) and management of PPH, including communication and documentation (n = 4), monitoring and prevention of shock (n = 3), use of blood products (n = 3) and treatment of PPH (n = 5). Organizational indicators (n = 5) were clustered into protocols and agreements, audit, accessibility and documentation. This study describes a stepwise systematic development of 22 performance and organizational indicators to use for measuring the whole care process of prevention and management of PPH.

Variation in guideline adherence in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma care: impact of patient and hospital characteristics.

BackgroundThe objective of this observational study was to assess the influence of patient, tumor, professional and hospital related characteristics on hospital variation concerning guideline adherence in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) care.MethodsValidated, guideline-based quality indicators (QIs) were used as a tool to assess guideline adherence for NHL care. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to calculate variation between hospitals and to identify characteristics explaining this variation. Data for the QIs regarding diagnostics, therapy, follow-up and organization of care, together with patient, tumor and professional related characteristics were retrospectively collected from medical records; hospital characteristics were derived from questionnaires and publically available data.ResultsData of 423 patients diagnosed with NHL between October 2010 and December 2011 were analyzed. Guideline adherence, as measured with the QIs, varied considerably between the 19 hospitals: >20 % variation was identified in all 20 QIs and high variation between the hospitals (>50 %) was seen in 12 QIs, most frequently in the treatment and follow-up domain.Hospital variation in NHL care was associated more than once with the characteristics age, extranodal involvement, multidisciplinary consultation, tumor type, tumor aggressiveness, LDH level, therapy used, hospital region and availability of a PET-scanner.ConclusionFifteen characteristics identified at the patient level and at the hospital level could partly explain hospital variation in guideline adherence for NHL care. Particularly age was an important determinant: elderly were less likely to receive care as measured in the QIs. The identification of determinants can be used to improve the quality of NHL care, for example, for standardizing multidisciplinary consultations in daily practice.

Appropriate Antibiotic Use for Patients With Urinary Tract Infections Reduces Length of Hospital Stay

To define appropriate antibiotic use for patients with a complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), we developed in a previous study a key set of 4 valid, guideline-based quality indicators (QIs). In the current study, we evaluated the association between appropriate antibiotic use for patients with a complicated UTI, as defined by these QIs, and length of hospital stay (LOS). A retrospective, observational multicenter study included 1252 patients with a complicated UTI, hospitalized at internal medicine and urology departments of 19 university and nonuniversity Dutch hospitals. Data from the patients' medical charts were used to calculate QI performance scores. Multilevel mixed-model analyses were performed to relate LOS to QI performance (appropriate use or not). We controlled for the potential confounders sex, age, (urological) comorbidity, febrile UTI, and intensive care unit admission <24 hours. Prescribing therapy in accordance with local hospital guidelines was associated with a shorter LOS (7.3 days vs 8.7 days; P = .02), as was early intravenous-oral switching (4.8 days vs 9.1 days; P < .001). There was an inverse relationship between the proportion of appropriate use in a patient (QI sum score/number of applicable QIs) and LOS (9.3 days for lower tertile vs 7.2 days for upper tertile; overall P < .05). Appropriate antibiotic use in patients with a complicated UTI seems to reduce length of hospital stay and therefore favors patient outcome and healthcare costs. In particular, adherence to the total set of QIs showed a significant dose-response relationship with a shorter LOS.