Development of a benchmark tool for cancer centers; results from a pilot exercise

• Published in: BMC health services research 2018-10, Vol.18 (1), p.764-14, Article 764
• Main Authors: Wind, Anke, van Dijk, Joris, Nefkens, Isabelle, van Lent, Wineke, Nagy, Péter, Janulionis, Ernestas, Helander, Tuula, Rocha-Goncalves, Francisco, van Harten, Wim
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accreditation; Benchmarking; Benchmarks; Cancer; Cancer Care Facilities - standards; Cancer centers; Content analysis; Data collection; Europe; Exercise; Feedback; Health care; Health services; Interdisciplinary aspects; Methods; Mortality; Oncology; Patient safety; Pilot Projects; Public sector; Purchasing power parity; Quality; Quality control; Quality improvement; Quality of care; Reproducibility of Results; Research methodology; Stakeholders; Validity
• ISSN: 1472-6963; 1472-6963
• DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3574-z

Differences in cancer survival exist between countries in Europe. Benchmarking of good practices can assist cancer centers to improve their services aiming for reduced inequalities. The aim of the BENCH-CAN project was to develop a cancer care benchmark tool, identify performance differences and yield good practice examples, contributing to improving the quality of interdisciplinary care. This paper describes the development of this benchmark tool and its validation in cancer centers throughout Europe. A benchmark tool was developed and executed according to a 13 step benchmarking process. Indicator selection was based on literature, existing accreditation systems, and expert opinions. A final format was tested in eight cancer centers. Center visits by a team of minimally 3 persons, including a patient representative, were performed to verify information, grasp context and check on additional questions (through semi-structured interviews). Based on the visits, the benchmark methodology identified opportunities for improvement. The final tool existed of 61 qualitative and 141 quantitative indicators, which were structured in an evaluative framework. Data from all eight participating centers showed inter-organization variability on many indicators, such as bed utilization and provision of survivorship care. Subsequently, improvement suggestions for centers were made; 85% of which were agreed upon. A benchmarking tool for cancer centers was successfully developed and tested and is available in an open format. The tool allows comparison of inter-organizational performance. Improvement opportunities were successfully identified for every center involved and the tool was positively evaluated.