Treatment in certified cancer centers is related to better survival in patients with colon and rectal cancer: evidence from a large German cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Certified cancer centers aim to ensure high-quality care by establishing structural and procedural standards according to evidence-based guidelines. Despite the high clinical and health policy relevance, evidence from a nation-wide study for the effectiveness of care for colorectal cancer in certified centers vs. other hospitals in Germany is still missing. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study covering the years 2009-2017, we analyzed patient data using demographic information, diagnoses, and treatments from a nationwide statutory health insurance enriched with information on certification. We investigated whether patients with incident colon or rectal cancer did benefit from primary therapy in a certified cancer center. We used relative survival analysis taking into account mortality data of the German population and adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics via Cox regression with shared frailty for patients in hospitals with and without certification. RESULTS: The cohorts for colon and rectal cancer consisted of 109,518 and 51,417 patients, respectively, treated in a total of 1052 hospitals. 37.2% of patients with colon and 42.9% of patients with rectal cancer were treated in a certified center. Patient age, sex, comorbidities, secondary malignoma, and distant metastases were similar across groups (certified/non-certified) for both colon and rectal cancer. Relative survival analysis showed significantly better survival of patients treated in a certified center, with 68.3% (non-certified hospitals 65.8%) 5-year survival for treatment of colon cancer in certified (p < 0.001) and 65.0% (58.8%) 5-year survival in case of rectal cancer (p < 0.001), respectively. Cox regression with adjustment for relevant covariates yielded a lower hazard of death for patients treated in certified centers for both colon (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.89-0.95) and rectal cancer (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.88-0.95). The results remained robust in a series of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This large cohort study yields new important evidence that patients with colorectal cancer have a better chance of survival if treated in a certified cancer center. Certification thus provides one powerful means to improve the quality of care for colorectal cancer. To decrease the burden of disease, more patients should thus receive cancer care in a certified center.

Hospital admissions following emergency medical services in Germany: analysis of 2 million hospital cases in 2022.

BACKGROUND: The use of emergency medical services (EMS) in Germany has increased substantially over the last few decades. While current reform efforts aim to increase effectiveness and efficiency of the German hospital and EMS systems, there is lack of data on characteristics of hospital cases using EMS. OBJECTIVES: To analyze and compare the characteristics of cases hospitalized with and without the use of EMS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The BARMER health insurance data on more than 2 million hospital cases admitted in 2022 were analyzed. The distributions of age, clinical complexity (measured by patient clinical complexity levels, PCCL), main diagnoses, costs for EMS and hospital treatment, and multiple severity indicators were described. The overall severity of hospital cases was classified as "low or moderate" or "high" based on a combined severity indicator. All analyses were stratified by use of EMS and EMS type. RESULTS: A total of 28% of all included hospital cases used EMS. Relative to hospital cases without use of EMS, hospital cases with use of EMS were older (physician-staffed ambulance: 75 years, interquartile range [IQR] 59-84, double-crewed ambulance: 78 years, IQR 64-85) and had a higher clinical complexity. The severity of more than 30% of the cases using EMS (except for patient transport service ambulance) was classified as "low or moderate". The distributions of main diagnoses differed by severity and use of EMS. CONCLUSIONS: The high proportion of cases with low or moderate severity using EMS may indicate a substantial potential to avoid the use of EMS in the context of hospital admissions in Germany. Further investigation is required to explore whether the proportion of cases using EMS could be reduced by optimizing preclinical service.