Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2018 Oct 10;18(1):764.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3574-z.

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

Anke Wind  1   2 , Joris van Dijk  3 , Isabelle Nefkens  3 , Wineke van Lent  4 , Péter Nagy  5 , Ernestas Janulionis  6 , Tuula Helander  7 , Francisco Rocha-Goncalves  8 , Wim van Harten  9   10   11
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

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

Anke Wind et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

Keywords: Benchmarking; Cancer centers; Quality improvement; Quality of care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
the BENCH-CAN framework. Note: The enabler domains from the EFQM model describe factors that enable good quality care. The results domains adapted from the IOM domains of quality describe how good quality care can be measured
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Number of daycare treatments in relation to the number of inpatient visits
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Inpatient and day-care bed utilization
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Total number of scans made per device in one year
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE-5—a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(1):23–34. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70546-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ettorchi-Tardy A, Levif M, Michel P. Benchmarking: a method for continuous quality improvement in health. Healthc Policy. 2012;7(4):e101. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Joint Commission . Benchmarking in health care. Joint commission. 2011.
    1. Gudmundsson H, Wyatt A, Gordon L. Benchmarking and sustainable transport policy: learning from the BEST network. Transp Rev. 2005;25(6):669–690. doi: 10.1080/01441640500414824. - DOI
    1. Longbottom D. Benchmarking in the UK: an empirical study of practitioners and academics. BIJ. 2000;7(2):98–117.

LinkOut - more resources