Search

Since 2014, prostate cancer centers outside Germany (PCCoG) are eligible for certification according to the criteria set out by the German Cancer Society (DKG). These centers must fulfill the same requirements as their German counterparts. The article reports on the experiences of the first nine certified PCCoG, with a focus on their indicator results. Following a descriptive analysis about primary case distribution, indicator definitions, and patient numbers, we compared indicator results for all 114 German PCC with all 9 PCCoG that have been certified for at least 3 years. Median centers’ proportion was calculated and overall proportion for every indicator. Two-sided Cochran–Armitage tests were applied to detect trends over time. The number of primary cases increased for both groups steadily from 2015 to 2017 as did fulfillment of most other indicators including PCa guideline-derived indicators. Requirements that proved to be hard to fulfill for PCCoG initially included psycho-oncological services (POS) and social service counselling (SCC). Fulfillment of POS requirements improved in the following years after initial certification in PCCoG. SCC rates remain low in PCCoG due to the different health system structures. Acquiring a certificate by the DKG is achievable for PCCoG. Candidate centers need to be aware that substantial effort is required to fulfill the criteria, but once this is done, typically an improvement of indicators and an increase in patient numbers can be observed. Different health-care systems need to be taken into consideration and the certification requirements adapted in different areas to allow country-specific implementation.

Background 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). Patients and methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.

The information about the patient's discharge medication (DM) in the discharge letter guarantees the subsequent pharmacotherapy at the interface between tertiary to primary care. International data however shows that general practitioners (GPs) receive discharge letters with a delay and relevant information about DM is lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the point of view of German GPs concerning the information about DM, since no recent data about this topic is available.In a postal survey 516 GPs in the city of Berlin were contacted and asked about the transit of discharge letters and the information about DM. Results | 117 GPs answered the questionnaire (23 %). Most frequently, the patient himself handed over the information about DM to the GP on the day of his first visit in the practice after discharge. However, more than two third of GPs wished to receive the information before the patient's first consultation (73 %). Therefore, the majority preferred the electronic communication via fax (46 %) or email (9 %). Almost half of the GPs stated that discharge letters were lacking information about changes in medication and reasons for these changes. At the same time, nearly all GPs thought that these informational aspects were important.GPs wish an early and electronic transit of the DM with information concerning changes in medication and reasons. If these wishes were considered, a continuous and thus safer pharmacotherapy at the interface could be guaranteed.