Incomplete patient information exchange and unnecessary repeat diagnostics during oncological referrals in the Netherlands: exploring the role of information exchange.

Data management in transmural care is complex. Without digital innovations like Health Information Exchange (HIE), patient information is often dispersed and inaccessible across health information systems between hospitals. The extent of information loss and consequences remain unclear. We aimed to quantify patient information availability of referred oncological patients and to assess its impact on unnecessary repeat diagnostics by observing all oncological multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) in a tertiary hospital. During 84 multidisciplinary team meetings, 165 patients were included. Complete patient information was provided in 17.6% (29/165, CI = 12.3-24.4) of patients. Diagnostic imaging was shared completely in 52.5% (74/141, CI = 43.9-60.9), imaging reports in 77.5% (100/129, CI = 69.2-84.2), laboratory results in 55.2% (91/165, CI = 47.2-62.8), ancillary test reports in 58.0% (29/50, CI = 43.3-71.5), and pathology reports in 60.0% (57/95, CI = 49.4-69.8). A total of 266 tests were performed additionally, with the main motivation not previously performed followed by inconclusive or insufficient quality of previous tests. Diagnostics were repeated unnecessarily in 15.8% (26/165, CI = 10.7-22.4) of patients. In conclusion, patient information was provided incompletely in majority of referrals discussed in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings and led to unnecessary repeat diagnostics in a small number of patients. Additional research is needed to determine the benefit of Health Information Exchange to improve data transfer in oncological care.

Between-hospital variation in time to glioblastoma surgery: a report from the Quality Registry Neuro Surgery in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with glioblastoma are often scheduled for urgent elective surgery. Currently, the impact of the waiting period until glioblastoma surgery is undetermined. In this national quality registry study, the authors determined the wait times until surgery for patients with glioblastoma, the risk factors associated with wait times, and the risk-standardized variation in time to surgery between Dutch hospitals. The associations between time to surgery and patient outcomes were also explored. METHODS: Data from all 4589 patients who underwent first-time glioblastoma surgery between 2014 and 2019 in the Netherlands were collected by 13 hospitals in the Quality Registry Neuro Surgery. Time to surgery comprised 1) the time from first MR scan to surgery (MTS), and 2) the time from first neurosurgical consultation to surgery (CTS). Long MTS was defined as more than 21 days and long CTS as more than 14 days. Potential risk factors were analyzed in multivariable logistic regression models. The standardized rate of long time to surgery was analyzed using funnel plots. Patient outcomes including Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score change, complications, and survival were analyzed by multivariable logistic regression and proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The median overall MTS and CTS were 18 and 9 days, respectively. Overall, 2576 patients (56%) had an MTS within 3 weeks and 3069 (67%) had a CTS within 2 weeks. Long MTS was significantly associated with older age, higher preoperative KPS score, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists comorbidity class, season, lower hospital case volume, university affiliation, and resection. Long CTS was significantly associated with higher baseline KPS score, university affiliation, resection, more recent year of treatment, and season. In funnel plots, considerable practice variation was observed between hospitals in patients with long times to surgery. Fewer patients with KPS score improvement were observed after a long time until resection. Long CTS was associated with longer survival. Complications and KPS score decline were not associated with time to surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable between-hospital variation among Dutch hospitals was observed in the time to glioblastoma surgery. A long time to resection impeded KPS score improvement, and therefore, patients who may improve should be identified for more urgent resection. Longer survival was observed in patients selected for longer time until surgery after neurosurgical consultation (CTS).

A multidisciplinary neuro-oncological triage panel reduces the time to referral and treatment for patients with a brain tumor.

BACKGROUND: Regional collaboration and appropriate referral management are crucial in neuro-oncological care. Lack of electronic access to medical records across health care organizations impedes interhospital consultation and may lead to incomplete and delayed referrals. To improve referral management, we have established a multidisciplinary neuro-oncological triage panel (NOTP) with digital image exchange and determined the effects on lead times, costs, and time investment. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted from February 2019 to March 2020. All newly diagnosed patients referred to Brain Tumor Center Amsterdam were analyzed according to referral pathway: (1) standard referral (SR), (2) NOTP. The primary outcome was lead time, defined as time-to-referral, time-to-treatment, and total time (median days [interquartile range]). Secondary outcomes were costs and time investment. RESULTS: In total, 225 patients were included, of whom 153 had SR and 72 NOTP referral. Patients discussed in the NOTP were referred more frequently for first neurosurgical consultation (44.7% vs 28.8%) or combined neurological and neurosurgical consultation (12.8% vs 2.5%, P = .002). Time-to-referral was reduced for NOTP referral compared to SR (1 [0.25-4] vs 6 [1.5-10] days, P < .001). Total time decreased from 27 [14-48] days for the standard group to 15 [12-38.25] days for the NOTP group (P = .040). Costs and time investment were comparable for both groups. CONCLUSION: Implementation of digital referral to a multidisciplinary NOTP is feasible and leads to more swift patient-tailored referrals at comparable costs and time investment as SR. This quality improvement initiative has the potential to improve collaboration and coordination of multidisciplinary care in the field of neuro-oncology.

Repeat hepatectomy justified in patients with early recurrence of colorectal cancer liver metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of repeat hepatectomy in patients with early recurrence of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) is questioned, in particular in those suffering from recurrence within three to six months following initial hepatectomy. The aim of this review was therefore to assess whether disease-free interval was associated with overall survival in patients undergoing repeat hepatectomy for recurrent CRLM. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched from database inception to 6th June 2020. Observational studies describing results of repeat hepatectomy for recurrent CRLM, including (disease-free) interval between hepatic resections and overall survival were included. Patients undergoing repeat hepatectomy within three months or additional resection of extrahepatic disease were excluded from meta-analysis. RESULTS: The initial search identified 2159 records, of which 28 were included for qualitative synthesis. A meta-analysis of 15 cohort studies was performed, comprising 1039 eligible patients. Median overall survival of 54.0 months [95 %-CI: 38.6-69.4] was observed after repeat hepatectomy in patients suffering from recurrent CRLM between three to six months compared to 53.0 months [95 %-CI: 44.3-61.6] for patients with recurrent CRLM between seven to twelve months (adjusted HR = 0.89, 95 %-CI: 0.66-1.18; p = 0.410), and 60.0 months [95 %-CI: 52.7-67.3] for patients with recurrent CRLM after twelve months (adjusted HR = 0.70, 95 %-CI: 0.53-0.92; p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Disease-free interval is considered a prognostic factor for overall survival, but should not be used as selection criterion per se for repeat hepatectomy in patients suffering from recurrent CRLM.

Timing of glioblastoma surgery and patient outcomes: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of time-to-surgery on clinical outcome for patients with glioblastoma has not been determined. Any delay in treatment is perceived as detrimental, but guidelines do not specify acceptable timings. In this study, we relate the time to glioblastoma surgery with the extent of resection and residual tumor volume, performance change, and survival, and we explore the identification of patients for urgent surgery. METHODS: Adults with first-time surgery in 2012-2013 treated by 12 neuro-oncological teams were included in this study. We defined time-to-surgery as the number of days between the diagnostic MR scan and surgery. The relation between time-to-surgery and patient and tumor characteristics was explored in time-to-event analysis and proportional hazard models. Outcome according to time-to-surgery was analyzed by volumetric measurements, changes in performance status, and survival analysis with patient and tumor characteristics as modifiers. RESULTS: Included were 1033 patients of whom 729 had a resection and 304 a biopsy. The overall median time-to-surgery was 13 days. Surgery was within 3 days for 235 (23%) patients, and within a month for 889 (86%). The median volumetric doubling time was 22 days. Lower performance status (hazard ratio [HR] 0.942, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.893-0.994) and larger tumor volume (HR 1.012, 95% CI 1.010-1.014) were independently associated with a shorter time-to-surgery. Extent of resection, residual tumor volume, postoperative performance change, and overall survival were not associated with time-to-surgery. CONCLUSIONS: With current decision-making for urgent surgery in selected patients with glioblastoma and surgery typically within 1 month, we found equal extent of resection, residual tumor volume, performance status, and survival after longer times-to-surgery.