Search

Background: Although quality indicators are frequently derived from guidelines, there is a substantial gap in collaboration between the corresponding parties. To optimise workflow, guideline recommendations and quality assurance should be aligned methodologically and practically. Learning from the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC), our objective was to bring the key knowledge and most important considerations from both worlds together to inform European Commission future initiatives.Methods: We undertook several steps to address the problem. First, we conducted a feasibility study that included a survey, interviews and a review of manuals for an integrated guideline and quality assurance (QA) scheme that would support the European Commission. The feasibility study drew from an assessment of the ECIBC experience that followed commonly applied strategies leading to separation of the guideline and QA development processes. Secondly, we used results of a systematic review to inform our understanding of methodologies for integrating guideline and QA development. We then, in a third step, used the findings to prepare an evidence brief and identify key aspects of a methodological framework for integrating guidelines QA through meetings with key informants.Results: Seven key themes emerged to be taken into account for integrating guidelines and QA schemes: (1) evidence-based integrated guideline and QA frameworks are possible, (2) transparency is key in clearly documenting the source and rationale for quality indicators, (3) intellectual and financial interests should be declared and managed appropriately, (4) selection processes and criteria for quality indicators need further refinement, (5) clear guidance on retirement of quality indicators should be included, (6) risks of an integrated guideline and QA Group can be mitigated, and (7) an extension of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist should incorporate QA considerations.Discussion: We concluded that the work of guideline and QA developers can be integrated under a common methodological framework and we provided key findings and recommendations. These two worlds, that are fundamental to improving health, can both benefit from integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The reported long waiting times for cancer patients have mostly been related to prognostic outcome and less to patient-related experience to outcome. We assessed waiting times for patients with cancer of the breast, prostate, colon or rectum in Sweden. Methods: The median time from referral to start of treatment was assessed using data from clinical cancer registers for patients who received curative treatment during 2011, 2012 and 2013. Results: The median overall waiting time in different counties ranged from 7 to 28 days for breast cancer, from 117 to 280 days for prostate cancer, from 27 to 64 days for colon cancer and from 48 to 80 days for rectal cancer. For the entire nation, the median time from referral to start of treatment remained unchanged from 2011 to 2013 for each cancer diagnosis. Conclusions: Large variations were found in waiting times between different counties in Sweden and between different types of cancer. The long waiting times identified in this study emphasize the need to improve national programmes for more rapid diagnosis and treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: To study incidence of radiation-related heart disease in a large population of breast cancer patients followed for up to 30years. Material and methods: 72,134 women diagnosed with breast cancer in Denmark or Sweden during 1976–2006 and followed prospectively. Radiation-related risk was studied by comparing women with left-sided and right-sided tumours. Results: 34,825 women (48%) received radiotherapy. Among unirradiated women tumour laterality had little relevance to heart disease. Among irradiated women mean dose to the whole heart was 6.3Gy for left-sided tumours and 2.7Gy for right-sided tumours. Mortality was similar in irradiated women with left-sided and right-sided tumours, but incidence ratios, left-sided versus right-sided, were raised: acute myocardial infarction 1.22 (95% CI 1.06–1.42), angina 1.25 (1.05–1.49), pericarditis 1.61 (1.06–2.43), valvular heart disease 1.54 (1.11–2.13). Incidence ratios for all heart disease were as high for women irradiated since 1990 (1.09 [1.00–1.19]) as for women irradiated during 1976–1989 (1.08 [0.99–1.17]), and were higher for women diagnosed with ischaemic heart disease prior to breast cancer than for other women (1.58 [1.19–2.10] versus 1.08 [1.01–1.15], p for difference=0.01). Conclusions: Breast cancer radiotherapy has, at least until recently, increased the risk of developing ischaemic heart disease, pericarditis and valvular disease. Women with ischaemic heart disease before breast cancer diagnosis may have incurred higher risks than others. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]