Search

PURPOSE: Cancer clinical trials offices (CTOs) support the investigation of cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment at cancer centers across North America. CTOs are a centralized resource for clinical trial conduct and typically use research staff with expertise in four functional areas of clinical research: finance, regulatory, clinical, and data operations. To our knowledge, there are no publicly available benchmark data sets that characterize the size, cost, volume, and efficiency of these offices, nor whether the metrics differ by National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation. The Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI) Clinical Research Innovation (CRI) steering committee developed a survey to address this knowledge gap. METHODS: An 11-question survey that addressed CTO budget, accrual and trial volume, full-time equivalents (FTEs), staff turnover, and activation timelines was developed by the AACI CRI steering committee and sent to 92 academic cancer research centers in North America (n = 90 in the United States; n = 2 in Canada), with 79 respondents completing the survey (86% completion rate). RESULTS: The number of FTE employees working in the CTOs ranged from 4.5 to 811 (median, 104). The median number of analytic cases (ie, newly diagnosed or received first course of treatment) reported by the main center was 3,856. Annual CTO budgets ranged from $250,000 to $23,900,000 (median, $8.2 million). The median trial activation time, based on 61 centers, was 167 days. The median number of accruals per center was 480 (range, 5-6,271) and median number of trials per center was 282 (range, 31-1,833). Budget and FTE ranges varied by NCI designation. CONCLUSION: The response rate to the survey was high. These data will allow cancer centers to evaluate their CTO infrastructure, funding, portfolio, and/or accrual goals as compared with peers. A wide range in each of the outcomes was noted, in keeping with the wide variation in size and scope of cancer center CTOs across the United States and Canada. These variations may warrant additional investigation.

Objective. The goal of this study is to evaluate the reasons for sanctioning and the types of sanctions used on general medicine primary healthcare practitioners (GM-PHPs) in the Republic of Macedonia.Materials and Method. This is a cross-sectional study for which we used an anonymous survey. This survey was distributed in a printed and electronic form to GM-PHPs in different parts of Macedonia and 438 of them responded. We used the SPSS statistical program to process the quantitative data. Results. The GM-PHPs’ sex was not associated with the sanctioning in the univariable analysis, but it was in the multivariable. GM-PHPs with ≥30 years of experience have 8.7 times higher odds to be sanctioned than those with ≤5 years of experience. GM-PHPs that worked in the hospital or ≤19 km from the nearest hospital were significantly more frequently sanctioned. The most common three reasons for sanctioning were: “Financial consumption of prescriptions and referrals above the agreed amount”, “Higher rate of sick leaves and/or unjustified sick leaves” and “Unrealized preventative goals or education”. “Financial sanction by scale” was the most common type of sanction - 49.8% of participants. GM-PHPs who followed the guidelines, but were exposed to violence by patients or their family/companion were sanctioned significantly more frequently.Conclusions. In our sample, we can observe that in the univariable analysis age, years of experience, family medicine speciality, the distance of the workplace from the nearest hospital and violence are associated with sanctioning. In the multivariable analysis: sex, years of experience, the distance of the workplace from the nearest hospital and violence are associated with sanctioning. The majority of sanctions were financial sanctions (84.5%).

Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pattern of controls and sanctions by the Health Insurance Institute (HIIS) over primary healthcare practitioners (PHCPs) in Slovenia, the reasons for sanctions and the violence against PHCPs if they followed the HIIS rules.Materials and Methods. We performed analyses using survey data from a cross-sectional study, across public health centres and individual contractors in which 1,458 PHCPs were invited to answer a questionnaire anonymously via an online system used to collect data for the Slovenian Medical Chamber and the Association of General Practice/Family Medicine of South-East Europe. Quantitative data were presented by descriptive statistics and analysed using Pearson’s chisquared test. Results. Responses were obtained from 462 female and 138 male PHCPs. Of the total number of 600 participants, 430 were family medicine specialists. 263 (43.8%) responded that they have been sanctioned for various reasons. PHCPs that are more likely to be sanctioned include family medicine specialists and individual contractors. PHCPs working in areas smaller than 20 000 inhabitants were sanctioned in a bigger proportion than their counterparts. Monetary penalties levied against those working at health centres were usually covered by the health centre. Family medicine specialists, more often than other PHCPs experienced violence from patients or patients’ relatives if they followed HIIS rules. Conclusion. Family medicine specialists are sanctioned more frequently than other PHCPs, individual contractors are sanctioned more frequently than public healthcare PHCPs and PHCPs in working area with a population less than 20.000 are more frequently sanctioned than those working in an area with a bigger population count.

This report describes the value of a voluntary error reporting system and the impact of a series of quality assurance (QA) measures including checklists and timeouts on reported error rates in patients receiving radiation therapy.A voluntary error reporting system was instituted with the goal of recording errors, analyzing their clinical impact, and guiding the implementation of targeted QA measures. In response to errors committed in relation to treatment of the wrong patient, wrong treatment site, and wrong dose, a novel initiative involving the use of checklists and timeouts for all staff was implemented. The impact of these and other QA initiatives was analyzed.From 2001 to 2011, a total of 256 errors in 139 patients after 284,810 external radiation treatments (0.09% per treatment) were recorded in our voluntary error database. The incidence of errors related to patient/tumor site, treatment planning/data transfer, and patient setup/treatment delivery was 9%, 40.2%, and 50.8%, respectively. The compliance rate for the checklists and timeouts initiative was 97% (P.001). These and other QA measures resulted in a significant reduction in many categories of errors. The introduction of checklists and timeouts has been successful in eliminating errors related to wrong patient, wrong site, and wrong dose.A comprehensive QA program that regularly monitors staff compliance together with a robust voluntary error reporting system can reduce or eliminate errors that could result in serious patient injury. We recommend the adoption of these relatively simple QA initiatives including the use of checklists and timeouts for all staff to improve the safety of patients undergoing radiation therapy in the modern era.