Impact of COVID-19 on cancer care pathways in a comprehensive cancer center in northern Italy.

The COVID-19 pandemic burdened health care systems worldwide. Health services were reorganized with the dual purpose of ensuring the most adequate continuity of care and, simultaneously, the safety of patients and health professionals. The provision of care to patients within cancer care pathways (cCPs) was not touched by such reorganization. We investigated whether the quality of care provided by a local comprehensive cancer center has been maintained using cCP indicators. A retrospective single-cancer center study was conducted on eleven cCPs from 2019 to 2021 by comparing three timeliness indicators, five care indicators and three outcome indicators yearly calculated on incident cases. Comparisons of indicators between 2019 and 2020, and 2019 and 2021, were performed to assess the performance of cCP function during the pandemic. Indicators displayed heterogeneous significant changes attributed to all cCPs over the study period, affecting eight (72%), seven (63%) and ten (91%) out of eleven cCPs in the comparison between 2019 and 2020, 2020 and 2021, and 2019 and 2021, respectively. The most relevant changes were attributed to a negative increase in time-to-treatment surgery-related indicators and to a positive increase in the number of cases discussed by cCP team members. No variations were found attributed to outcome indicators. Significant changes did not account for clinical relevance once discussed by cCP managers and team members. Our experience demonstrated that the CP model constitutes an appropriate tool for providing high levels of quality care, even in the most critical health situations.

Impact of 2 years of COVID-19 pandemic on ovarian cancer treatment in IRCCS-AUSL of Reggio Emilia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess compliance with the 2019 regional recommendation to centralize epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients and to assess whether the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the quality of care for EOC patients. METHODS: We compared data from EOC patients treated before the introduction of the 2019 regional recommendation (2018-2019) with data obtained from EOC patients treated after the regional recommendation was adopted during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021). Data were retrieved from the Optimal Ovarian Cancer Pathway records. R software version 4.1.2 (the R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: 251 EOC patients were centralized. The number of EOC patients centralized increased from 2% to 49% despite the COVID-19 pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking surgery. There was an improvement in the percentage of Stage III patients without gross residual disease following both primary and interval debulking surgery. The percentage of EOC cases discussed by the multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) increased from 66% to 89% of cases. CONCLUSION: Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, centralization has increased and the quality of care has been preserved thanks to the MTB.

Learning from Adaptations to the COVID-19 Pandemic: How Teleconsultation Supported Cancer Care Pathways at a Comprehensive Cancer Center in Northern Italy.

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are recognized as the gold standard for care management of cancer patients, and during the COVID-19 pandemic they were considered a priority to be maintained. Due to pandemic-related restrictions, MDT meetings were forcibly converted from in-person to telematic format. This retrospective study evaluated the annual performance of four MDT meeting indicators (MDT members' attendance, number of discussed cases, frequency of MDT meetings, and duration) between 2019 and 2022 to report on the implementation of teleconsultation in MDT meetings related to 10 cancer care pathways (CCPs). Over the study period, MDT member participation and the number of discussed cases improved or did not change in 90% (9/10) and 80% (8/10) of the CCPs, respectively. We did not observe significant differences in any of the CCPs included in the study regarding the annual frequency and duration of MDT meeting. Considering the rapidity, extent, and intensity with which telematic tools were adopted due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the results of this study showed that MDT teleconsultation supported the CCPs, and consequently, the delivery of cancer care in COVID-19 times, helping to understand the effects of telematic tools on health care performance and the parties involved.

Ovarian Cancer in a Northern Italian Province and the Multidisciplinary Team.

Ovarian cancer represents one of the most aggressive female cancers in the world, remaining a tumor with high lethality. This study aims to present how a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach can improve the prognosis in terms of recurrence and death of patients. In total, 448 ovarian cancer cases registered in an Italian Cancer Registry between 2012 and 2020 were included. Information on age, morphology, stage, and treatment was collected. Recurrence and death rates were reported 1 and 2 years after diagnosis, comparing MDT vs. non-MDT approaches. Ninety-three percent had microscopic confirmation, and most showed cystic-mucinous morphology. In total, 50% were older than 65 years old. The distribution by stage was 17.6%, 4%, 44.9%, and 32.6% for stages I, II, III, and IV, respectively. The women followed by the MDT were 24.1%. Disease-free survival 1-year post-diagnosis, recurrences, recurrences-deaths, and deaths were 67.5%, 14.5%, 8.4%, and 9.6%, respectively, better than the non-MDT group (46.2%, 13.2%, 20.8 %, and 19.8%, respectively) (p < 0.01). The same positive results were confirmed two years after diagnosis, particularly for stages III and IV. Albeit small numbers, the study confirms a better prognosis for women managed by MDT with fewer recurrences and deaths, especially within the first 24 months of diagnosis.

A focused ethnography in the context of a European cancer research hospital accreditation program.

BACKGROUND: A quality accreditation program (AP) is designed to guarantee predefined quality standards of healthcare organizations. Evidence of the impact of quality standards remains scarce and somewhat challenging to document. This study aimed to investigate the accreditation of a cancer research hospital (Italy), promoted by the Organization of European Cancer Institutes (OECI), by focusing on the individual, group, and organizational experiences resulting from the OECI AP. METHODS: A focused ethnography study was carried out to analyze the relevance of participation in the accreditation process. Twenty-nine key informants were involved in four focus group meetings, and twelve semistructured interviews were conducted with professionals and managers. Inductive qualitative content analysis was applied to examine all transcripts. RESULTS: Four main categories emerged: a) OECI AP as an opportunity to foster diversity within professional roles; b) OECI AP as a possibility for change; c) perceived barriers; and d) OECI AP-solicited expectations. CONCLUSIONS: The accreditation process is an opportunity for improving the quality and variety of care services for cancer patients through promoting an interdisciplinary approach to care provision. Perceiving accreditation as an opportunity is a prerequisite for overcoming the barriers that professionals involved in the process may report. Critical to a positive change is sharing the values and the framework, which are at the basis of accreditation programs. Improving the information-sharing process among managers and professionals may limit the risk of unmet expectations and prevent demotivation by future accreditation programs. Finally, we found that positive changes are more likely to happen when an accreditation process is considered an activity whose results depend on managers' and professionals' joint work.

The experience of accreditation of the Reggio Emilia Research Hospital with the OECI model.

The research hospital Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) of Reggio Emilia has a unique organization that involves a recently recognized IRCCS in oncology within a preexisting general hospital. The IRCCS of Reggio Emilia joined the "Tailored Accreditation Model for Comprehensive Cancer Centers: Validation through the Applicability of the Experimental OECI-based Model to the Network of Cancer IRCCS of the Alliance Against Cancer" and applied the accreditation & designation (A&D) Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) model in 2013. Before that accreditation, it had never been accredited according to international accreditation systems concerning cancer. By December 2015, the IRCCS of Reggio Emilia completed the first steps of the A&D OECI process (self-assessment period, peer review visit, implementation of the improvement plan). In December 2014, OECI confirmed the accreditation of our IRCCS and its designation as a Clinical Cancer Center and proposed a revisit at 2 years for upgrading the designation to Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC). On the whole, the results given by adhesion to the A&D-OECI project are numerous and positive, under different points of view, formal (European accreditation and designation as a Clinical Cancer Center with possible upgrade to CCC) and substantial (involvement of professionals, attention to ongoing improvement, work on the sectors mainly of interest). The balance between the advantages and disadvantages linked to this accreditation model was positive. Following our experience, we conclude that the model was useful also for our kind of IRCCS, with its features useful for investigating all the sectors of the patient care pathway and research and necessity to stimulate change.