Guideline Adherence and Implementation of Tumor Board Therapy Recommendations for Patients With Gastrointestinal Cancer

Purpose: Although participation in multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) is an obligatory quality criterion for certification, there is scarce evidence, whether MTB recommendations are consistent with consensus guidelines and whether they are followed in clinical practice. Reasons of guideline and tumor board deviations are poorly understood so far. Methods: MTBs recommendations from the weekly MTB for gastrointestinal cancers at the University Cancer Center Leipzig/Germany (UCCL) in 2020 were analyzed for their adherence to therapy recommendations as stated in National German guidelines and implementation within an observation period of 3 months. To assess adherence, an objective classification system was developed assigning a degree of guideline and tumor board adherence to each MTB case. For cases with deviations, underlying causes and influencing factors were investigated and categorized. Results: 76% of MTBs were fully adherent to guidelines, with 16% showing deviations, mainly due to study inclusions and patient comorbidities. Guideline adherence in 8% of case discussions could not be determined, especially because there was no underlying guideline recommendation for the specific topic. Full implementation of the MTBs treatment recommendation occurred in 64% of all cases, while 21% showed deviations with primarily reasons of comorbidities and differing patient wishes. Significantly lower guideline and tumor board adherences were demonstrated in patients with reduced performance status (ECOG-PS ≥ 2) and for palliative intended therapy (p=.002/.007). Conclusion: The assessment of guideline deviations and adherence to MTB decisions by a systematic and objective quality assessment tool could become a meaningful quality criterion for cancer centers in Germany.

Policy Spotlight Effect in Critical Time-Sensitive Diseases

Background: Categorization of hospital emergency capability (CHEC) is a policy implemented worldwide to regionalize critical emergent care. The CHEC policy mainly uses time-based indicators as emergency care quality measurements.Objectives: We aimed to explore the CHEC policy spotlight effect on critical time-sensitive diseases with and without the influence of time-based surveillance indicators and guidelines. Research Design: We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study between 2005–2011. Regarding critical time-sensitive diseases, our study targeted acute ischemic stroke (AIS), ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), septic shock, and major trauma. We selected diagnosis and treatment guideline adherence as process quality measures and defined medical utilization, upward transfer rate, and short-term mortality rate as outcome indicators. Subjects: The Taiwan National Health Insurance 2005 Longitudinal Health Insurance Database contains one million random cases, including medical records and hospital information. Results: During this 7-year study AIS, STEMI, septic shock, and major trauma, respectively. AIS and STEMI cohorts had significantly higher rates of guideline adherence and better process quality than those of septic shock and major trauma cohorts. Furthermore, AIS and STEMI cohorts had a significant increase in diagnosis costs. Conclusion: The CHEC policy spotlight effect exists in critical time-sensitive diseases with time-based quality indicators. Importantly, disease entities without these indicators may experience decreases in diagnosis and treatment guideline adherence, indirectly jeopardizing their outcomes.

The Effect of Pharmacist-Led Intervention on Surgical Antibacterial Prophylaxis (SAP) at an Orthopedic Unit

Perioperative antibiotic use is a common reason for antibiotic misuse. Evidence suggests that adherence to SAP guidelines may improve outcomes. The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of pharmacist-led antibiotic stewardship interventions on SAP guideline compliance. The study was conducted at an Orthopedic Department of a tertiary care medical center. SAP compliance and antibiotic exposure in the pre-intervention and intervention period was compared using chi-square, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney tests, as appropriate. Prophylactic antibiotic use in orthopedic joint arthroplasties (overall guideline adherence: agent, dose, frequency, duration), clinical outcomes (length of stay-LOS, number of surgical site infections-SSIs), antibiotic exposure and direct antibiotic costs were compared between pre-intervention and intervention periods. Significant improvement in mean SAP duration (by 42.9%, 4.08 ± 2.08 vs. 2.08 ± 1.90 days, p ˂ 0.001), and overall guideline adherence regarding antibiotic use (by 56.2%, from 2% to 58.2%, p ˂ 0.001) were observed. A significant decrease was observed in antibiotic exposure in SAP (by 41%, from 6.07 ± 0.05 to 3.58 ± 4.33 DDD/patient, p ˂ 0.001), average prophylactic antibiotic cost (by 54.8%, 9278.79 ± 6094.29 vs. 3598.16 ± 3354.55 HUF/patient), and mean LOS (by 37.2%, from 11.22 ± 6.96 to 7.62 ± 3.02 days, p < 0.001); and a slight decrease in the number of confirmed SSIs was found between the two periods (by 1.8%, from 3% to 1.2%, p = 0.21). Continuous presence of the clinical pharmacist led to significant improvement in SAP guideline adherence, which was accompanied by decreased antibiotic exposure and cost.

Does the Identification of a Minimum Number of Cases Correlate With Better Adherence to International Guidelines Regarding the Treatment of Penile Cancer? Survey Results of the European PROspective Penile Cancer Study (E-PROPS)

BackgroundPenile cancer represents a rare malignant disease, whereby a small caseload is associated with the risk of inadequate treatment expertise. Thus, we hypothesized that strict guideline adherence might be considered a potential surrogate for treatment quality. This study investigated the influence of the annual hospital caseload on guideline adherence regarding treatment recommendations for penile cancer.MethodsIn a 2018 survey study, 681 urologists from 45 hospitals in four European countries were queried about six hypothetical case scenarios (CS): local treatment of the primary tumor pTis (CS1) and pT1b (CS2); lymph node surgery inguinal (CS3) and pelvic (CS4); and chemotherapy neoadjuvant (CS5) and adjuvant (CS6). Only the responses from 206 head and senior physicians, as decision makers, were evaluated. The answers were assessed based on the applicable European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines regarding their correctness. The real hospital caseload was analyzed based on multivariate logistic regression models regarding its effect on guideline adherence.ResultsThe median annual hospital caseload was 6 (interquartile range (IQR) 3–9). Recommendations for CS1–6 were correct in 79%, 66%, 39%, 27%, 28%, and 28%, respectively. The probability of a guideline-adherent recommendation increased with each patient treated per year in a clinic for CS1, CS2, CS3, and CS6 by 16%, 7.8%, 7.2%, and 9.5%, respectively (each p &lt; 0.05); CS4 and CS5 were not influenced by caseload. A caseload threshold with a higher guideline adherence for all endpoints could not be perceived. The type of hospital care (academic vs. non-academic) did not affect guideline adherence in any scenario.ConclusionsGuideline adherence for most treatment recommendations increases with growing annual penile cancer caseload. Thus, the results of our study call for a stronger centralization of diagnosis and treatment strategies regarding penile cancer.

Early and Later Perceptions and Reactions to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany: On Predictors of Behavioral Responses and Guideline Adherence During the Restrictions

In March 2020, the German government enacted measures on movement restrictions and social distancing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As this situation was previously unknown, it raised numerous questions about people’s perceptions of and behavioral responses to these new policies. In this context, we were specifically interested in people’s trust in official information, predictors for self-prepping behavior and health behavior to protect oneself and others, and determinants for adherence to social distancing guidelines. To explore these questions, we conducted three studies in which a total of 1,368 participants were surveyed (Study 1 N=377, March 2020; Study 2 N=461, April 2020; Study 3 N=530, April 2021) across Germany between March 2020 and April 2021. Results showed striking differences in the level of trust in official statistics (depending on the source). Furthermore, all three studies showed congruent findings regarding the influence of different factors on the respective behavioral responses. Trust in official statistics predicted behavioral responses in all three studies. However, it did not influence adherence to social distancing guidelines in 2020, but in 2021. Furthermore, adherence to social distancing guidelines was associated with higher acceptance rates of the measures and being older. Being female and less right-wing orientated were positively associated with guidelines adherence only in the studies from 2020. This year, political orientation moderated the association between acceptance of the measures and guideline adherence. This investigation is one of the first to examine perceptions and reactions during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany across 1year and provides insights into important dimensions that need to be considered when communicating with the public.