Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2023
Experience of a single academic institution with the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer and the resulting improvement in care.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Johns Alexandra J, Yoon Paul S, Sabo Anthony J, Huynh Timothy T, Farmer Diana L, Navarro Shannon M, Farkas Linda M
Аннотация
AIM: The American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer developed the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) to reduce variations in rectal cancer care, standardize clinical practice and encourage multidisciplinary approaches. The aim of this study was to analyse if accreditation achieved a higher quality of care at one hospital.
METHOD: The University of California Davis Medical Center was accredited in 2019. A retrospective review of rectal adenocarcinoma patients was performed between the years 2013 and 2018. Patients presenting from 2013 to 2015 were discussed at a gastrointestinal tumour board while patients in 2018 had an accredited rectal cancer tumour board. Patients from 2016 to 2017 were excluded as the programme was still developing. Compliance to the NAPRC standards was compared between the cohorts.
RESULTS: One hundred and thirty patients were evaluated, 88 (68%) in the prerectal tumour board cohort and 42 (32%) in the rectal tumour board cohort. The prerectal tumour board cohort often failed to meet attendance standards. All patients in the rectal tumour board cohort met all criteria. Similarly, clinical service compliance improved in the rectal tumour board cohort for 13 metrics, 10 of which were statistically significant. Although a high proportion of patients in both groups experienced quality surgery, i.e. complete total mesorectal excision and negative margins, the lack of complete pathological reporting in the prerectal tumour board cohort limited analysis.
CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary rectal cancer tumour boards are associated with improved compliance with recommended care by the NAPRC. Patients discussed at a rectal cancer tumour board were more likely to receive appropriate staging, coordinated care and have better clinical documentation.
METHOD: The University of California Davis Medical Center was accredited in 2019. A retrospective review of rectal adenocarcinoma patients was performed between the years 2013 and 2018. Patients presenting from 2013 to 2015 were discussed at a gastrointestinal tumour board while patients in 2018 had an accredited rectal cancer tumour board. Patients from 2016 to 2017 were excluded as the programme was still developing. Compliance to the NAPRC standards was compared between the cohorts.
RESULTS: One hundred and thirty patients were evaluated, 88 (68%) in the prerectal tumour board cohort and 42 (32%) in the rectal tumour board cohort. The prerectal tumour board cohort often failed to meet attendance standards. All patients in the rectal tumour board cohort met all criteria. Similarly, clinical service compliance improved in the rectal tumour board cohort for 13 metrics, 10 of which were statistically significant. Although a high proportion of patients in both groups experienced quality surgery, i.e. complete total mesorectal excision and negative margins, the lack of complete pathological reporting in the prerectal tumour board cohort limited analysis.
CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary rectal cancer tumour boards are associated with improved compliance with recommended care by the NAPRC. Patients discussed at a rectal cancer tumour board were more likely to receive appropriate staging, coordinated care and have better clinical documentation.