Evaluating comprehensive cancer networks; a review of standards and evaluation methods for care networks to inform a comparison with the OECI comprehensive cancer network standards.

INTRODUCTION: To ensure that all citizens have equal access to high-quality cancer diagnosis and care, the EU4Health Programme, Europe's Beating Cancer Plan, and Horizon Europe's Cancer Mission propose Comprehensive Cancer Infrastructures in every European Union Member State. It is therefore important to establish the basic principles for high-performing cancer networks and a methodology for evaluating their quality and effectiveness. This article describes methods and standards/indicators for network evaluation found in literature, gives a comparative overview of the new OECI European Cancer Network Quality standards, and proposes principles for evaluating the performance of Comprehensive Cancer Networks as a basis for continuous improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a scoping literature review on methods and standards/indicators for care-network evaluation. We then compared the OECI set with literature findings, categorised standards that were similar, reflected on standards that were different, and deduced principles for quality standards for cancer networks. RESULTS: Of 1002 articles identified, 17 reported on evaluation methods and/or (mostly) qualitative indicators. Sixteen studies described indicators/standards for evaluating care networks, critical success factors or desirable outcomes. Of the 54 present OECI standards, 32 had a literature equivalent. No literature equivalent was found for 22 standards, especially on those related to the combination of care and research. The proposed OECI evaluation methods (survey, document review, and interviews) were all reported in the literature. From the conformity of these results, we deduced 8 principles for standards evaluating the effectiveness of Comprehensive Cancer Networks. CONCLUSIONS: Research on the evaluation of the effectiveness of care networks is scarce. Evaluation methods vary and are often single time-point assessments. The OECI set contributes to establishing clear principles and standards to evaluate the effectiveness of Comprehensive Cancer Networks.

Analysing the attributes of Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres across Europe to identify key hallmarks.

There is a persistent variation in cancer outcomes among and within European countries suggesting (among other causes) inequalities in access to or delivery of high-quality cancer care. European policy (EU Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan) is currently moving towards a mission-oriented approach addressing these inequalities. In this study, we used the quantitative and qualitative data of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes' Accreditation and Designation Programme, relating to 40 large European cancer centres, to describe their current compliance with quality standards, to identify the hallmarks common to all centres and to show the distinctive features of Comprehensive Cancer Centres. All Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres accredited by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes show good compliance with quality standards related to care, multidisciplinarity and patient centredness. However, Comprehensive Cancer Centres on average showed significantly better scores on indicators related to the volume, quality and integration of translational research, such as high-impact publications, clinical trial activity (especially in phase I and phase IIa trials) and filing more patents as early indicators of innovation. However, irrespective of their size, centres show significant variability regarding effective governance when functioning as entities within larger hospitals.

Benchmarking Cancer Centers: From Care Pathways to Integrated Practice Units.

Background: Structuring cancer care into pathways can reduce variability in clinical practice and improve patient outcomes. International benchmarking can help centers with regard to development, implementation, and evaluation. A further step in the development of multidisciplinary care is to organize care in integrated practice units (IPUs), encompassing the whole pathway and relevant organizational aspects. However, research on this topic is limited. This article describes the development and results of a benchmark tool for cancer care pathways and explores IPU development in cancer centers. Methods: The benchmark tool was developed according to a 13-step benchmarking method and piloted in 7 European cancer centers. Centers provided data and site visits were performed to understand the context in which the cancer center operates and to clarify additional questions. Benchmark data were structured into pathway development and evaluation and assessed against key IPU features. Results: Benchmark results showed that most centers have formalized multidisciplinary pathways and that care teams differed in composition, and found almost 2-fold differences in mammography use efficiency. Suggestions for improvement included positioning pathways formally and structurally evaluating outcomes at a sufficiently high frequency. Based on the benchmark, 3 centers indicating that they had a breast cancer IPU were scored differently on implementation. Overall, we found that centers in Europe are in various stages of development of pathways and IPUs, ranging from an informal pathway structure to a full IPU-type of organization. Conclusions: A benchmark tool for care pathways was successfully developed and tested, and is available in an open format. Our tool allows for the assessment of pathway organization and can be used to assess the status of IPU development. Opportunities for improvement were identified regarding the organization of care pathways and the development toward IPUs. Three centers are in varying degrees of implementation and can be characterized as breast cancer IPUs. Organizing cancer care in an IPU could yield multiple performance improvements.