COVID-19 and radiation oncology: the experience of a two-phase plan within a single institution in central Italy.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 in Italy has led to the need to reorganize hospital protocols with a significant risk of interruption to cancer treatment programs. In this report, we will focus on a management model covering the two phases of the COVID-19 emergency, namely lockdown-phase I and post-lockdown-phase II. METHODS: The following steps were taken in the two phases: workload during visits and radiotherapy planning, use of dedicated routes, measures for triage areas, management of suspected and positive COVID-19 cases, personal protective equipment, hospital environments and intra-institutional meetings and tumor board management. Due to the guidelines set out by the Ministry of Health, oncological follow-up visits were interrupted during the lockdown-phase I; consequently, we set about contacting patients by telephone, with laboratory and instrumental exams being viewed via telematics. During the post-lockdown-phase II, the oncological follow-up clinic reopened, with two shifts operating daily. RESULTS: By comparing our radiotherapy activity from March 9 to May 4 2019 with the same period in 2020 during full phase I of the COVID-19 emergency, similar results were achieved. First radiotherapy visits, Simulation Computed Tomography and Linear Accelerator treatments amounted to 123, 137 and 151 in 2019 compared with 121, 135 and 170 in 2020 respectively. There were no cases of COVID-19 positivity recorded either in patients or in healthcare professionals, who were all negative to the swab tests performed. CONCLUSION: During both phases of the COVID-19 emergency, the planned model used in our own experience guaranteed both continuity in radiotherapy treatments whilst neither reducing workload nor interrupting treatment and, as such, it ensured the safety of cancer patients, hospital environments and staff.

AHRQ prevention quality indicators to assess the quality of primary care of local providers: a pilot study from Italy.

BACKGROUND: Outside the USA, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) prevention quality indicators (PQIs) have been used to compare the quality of primary care services only at a national or regional level. However, in several national health systems, primary care is not directly managed by the regions but is in charge of smaller territorial entities. We evaluated whether PQIs might be used to compare the performance of local providers such as Italian local health authorities (LHAs) and health districts. METHODS: We analysed the hospital discharge abstracts of 44 LHAs (and 11 health districts) of five Italian regions (including ≈18 million residents) in 2008-10. Age-standardized PQI rates were computed following AHRQ specifications. Potential predictors were investigated using multilevel modelling. RESULTS: We analysed 11 470 722 hospitalizations. The overall rates of preventable hospitalizations (composite PQI 90) were 1012, 889 and 988 (×100 000 inhabitants) in 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively. Composite PQIs were able to differentiate LHAs and health districts and showed small variation in the performance ranking over years. CONCLUSION: Although further research is required, our findings support the use of composite PQIs to evaluate the performance of relatively small primary health care providers (50 000-60 000 enrollees) in countries with universal health care coverage. Achieving high precision may be crucial for a structured quality assessment system to align hospitalization rate indicators with measures of other contexts of care (cost, clinical management, satisfaction/experience) that are typically computed at a local level.