[Incidence of incontinence after radical prostatectomy using claims-based data]. / Hoe vaak incontinentie na radicale prostatectomie?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of radical prostatectomy (RP) hospital volume on the probability of post-RP incontinence. DESIGN: Retrospective research based on claims-based data of health insurers. METHOD: For every patient with RP the probability of incontinence was determined, based on the definition of claims of one or more incontinence pads per day. Casemix corrections were made based on indicators available in claims-data: age, lymph node dissection, and radiotherapy. No casemix corrections could be made for tumour stage and surgical technique. RESULTS: A total of 1590 patients were included in this study; for 26.0% of these patients, an average of one or more incontinence pads per day were claimed for. A significant relation between the volume of RP per hospital and the claims of incontinence material was observed. The probability of incontinence was significantly lower in hospitals with a volume of more than 100 RP patients per year when compared to hospitals with less than 100 RP patients per year. CONCLUSION: The probability of post-RP incontinence decreases as hospitals conduct more RP procedures. The casemix factors included in the analysis only had a limited impact on this observation.

Trends in quality of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma care: is it getting better?

This study outlines trends in quality of delivered non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) care in the Netherlands between 2007 and 2011 and to what extend this was influenced by the national Visible Care program, which aimed at increasing transparency by providing insight into the quality of healthcare. We analyzed data collected from medical records in two observational studies, combined into 20 validated quality indicators (QIs) of which 6 were included in the national program. A random sample of 771 patients, diagnosed with NHL in 26 Dutch hospitals, was examined. Multilevel regression analyses were used to assess differences in quality of NHL care and to provide insight into the effect of the national program. We reported improved adherence to only 3 out of 6 QIs involved in the national program and none of the other 14 validated QIs. Improvement was shown for performance of all recommended staging techniques (from 26 to 43 %), assessment of International Prognostic Index (from 21 to 43 %), and multidisciplinary discussion of patients (from 23 to 41 %). We found limited improvement in quality of NHL care between 2007 and 2011; improvement potential (<80 % adherence) was still present for 13 QIs. The national program seems to have a small positive effect, but has not influenced all 20 indicators which represent the most important, measurable parts in quality of NHL care. These results illustrate the need for tailored implementation and quality improvement initiatives.

Delivering high-quality care to patients with a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: barriers perceived by patients and physicians.

BACKGROUND: Despite the presence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) guidelines, there are still gaps between best evidence as described in guidelines and quality of care in daily practice. Little is known about factors that affect this discrepancy. We aim to identify barriers that influence the delivery of care and to explore differences between patients' and physicians' experiences, as well as between the different disciplines involved. METHODS: Patients and physicians involved in NHL care were interviewed about their experiences with NHL care. The barriers identified in these interviews were quantified in a web-based survey. Differences were tested using Chi-square tests. RESULTS: Barriers frequently perceived by patients concerned lack of patient information and emphatic contact (12-43%), long waiting times (19-35%) and lack of guidance and support (39%). Most barriers mentioned by physicians concerned the unavailability of the guideline (32%), lack of an up-to-date guideline (66%), lack of standardised forms for diagnostics (56-70%) and of multidisciplinary meetings (56%). Perceived barriers concerning the guideline and standardised forms significantly varied between the disciplines involved (range 14-84%, p.