Explore the vast range of titles available.

Study goal We compared the survival rates of women with breast cancer (BC) detected within versus outside the mammography screening program (MSP) “donna”. Methods We merged data from the MSP with the data from corresponding cancer registries to categorize BC cases as within MSP (screen-detected and interval carcinomas) and outside the MSP. We analyzed the tumor stage distribution, tumor characteristics and the survival of the women. We further estimated hazard ratios using Cox-regressions to account for different characteristics between groups and corrected the survival rates for lead-time bias. Results We identified 1057 invasive (ICD-10: C50) and in-situ (D05) BC cases within the MSP and 1501 outside the MSP between 2010 and 2019 in the Swiss cantons of St. Gallen and Grisons. BC within the MSP had a higher share of stage I carcinoma (46.5% vs. 33.0%; p  < 0.01), a smaller (mean) tumor size (19.1 mm vs. 24.9 mm, p  < 0.01), and fewer recurrences and metastases in the follow-up period (6.7% vs. 15.6%, p  < 0.01). The 10-year survival rates were 91.4% for women within and 72.1% for women outside the MSP ( p  < 0.05). Survival difference persisted but decreased when women within the same tumor stage were compared. Lead-time corrected hazard ratios for the MSP accounted for age, tumor size and Ki-67 proliferation index were 0.550 (95% CI 0.389, 0.778; p  < 0.01) for overall survival and 0.469 (95% CI 0.294, 0.749; p  < 0.01) for BC related survival. Conclusion Women participating in the “donna” MSP had a significantly higher overall and BC related survival rate than women outside the program. Detection of BC at an earlier tumor stage only partially explains the observed differences.

A clinical dashboard is a data-driven clinical decision support tool visualizing multiple key performance indicators in a single report while minimizing time and effort for data gathering. Studies have shown that including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical dashboards supports the clinician's understanding of how treatments impact patients' health status, helps identify changes in health-related quality of life at an early stage, and strengthens patient-physician communication. This study aims to determine design components for clinical dashboards incorporating PROMs to inform software producers and users (ie, physicians). We conducted interviews with software producers and users to test preselected design components. Furthermore, the interviews allowed us to derive additional components that are not outlined in existing literature. Finally, we used inductive and deductive coding to derive a guide on which design components need to be considered when building a clinical dashboard incorporating PROMs. A total of 25 design components were identified, of which 16 were already surfaced during the literature search. Furthermore, 9 additional components were derived inductively during our interviews. The design components are clustered in a generic dashboard, PROM-related, adjacent information, and requirements for adoption components. Both software producers and users agreed on the primary purpose of a clinical dashboard incorporating PROMs to enhance patient communication in outpatient settings. Dashboard benefits include enhanced data visualization and improved workflow efficiency, while interoperability and data collection were named as adoption challenges. Consistency in dashboard design components is preferred across different episodes of care, with adaptations only for disease-specific PROMs. Clinical dashboards have the potential to facilitate informed treatment decisions if certain design components are followed. This study establishes a comprehensive framework of design components to guide the development of effective clinical dashboards incorporating PROMs in health care practice.

While the effectiveness of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as an intervention to impact patient pathways has been established for cancer care, it is unknown for other indications. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a PROM-based monitoring and alert intervention for early detection of critical recovery paths following hip and knee replacement. The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is based on a multicentre randomised controlled trial encompassing 3,697 patients with hip replacement and 3,110 patients with knee replacement enrolled from 2019 to 2020 in 9 German hospitals. The analysis was conducted with a subset of 546 hip and 492 knee replacement cases with longitudinal cost data from 24 statutory health insurances. Patients were randomised 1:1 to a PROM-based remote monitoring and alert intervention or to a standard care group. All patients were assessed at 12-months post-surgery via digitally collected PROMs. Patients within the intervention group were additionally assessed at 1-, 3-, and 6-months post-surgery to be contacted in case of critical recovery paths. For the effect evaluation, a PROM-based composite measure (PRO-CM) was developed, combining changes across various PROMs in a single index ranging from 0 to 100. The PRO-CM included 6 PROMs focused on quality of life and various aspects of physical and mental health. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The intervention group showed incremental outcomes of 2.54 units PRO-CM (95% confidence interval (CI) [0.93, 4.14]; p = 0.002) for patients with hip and 0.87 (95% CI [-0.94, 2.67]; p = 0.347) for patients with knee replacement. Within the 12-months post-surgery period the intervention group had less costs of 376.43€ (95% CI [-639.74, -113.12]; p = 0.005) in patients with hip, and 375.50€ (95% CI [-767.40, 16.39]; p = 0.060) in patients with knee replacement, revealing a dominant ICER for both procedures. However, it remains unclear which step of the multistage intervention contributes most to the positive effect. The intervention significantly improved patient outcomes at lower costs in patients with hip replacements when compared with standard care. Further it showed a nonsignificant cost reduction in knee replacement patients. This reinforces the notion that PROMs can be utilised as a cost-effective instrument for remote monitoring in standard care settings. Registration: German Register for Clinical Studies (DRKS) under DRKS00019916.

Background The number of total knee replacements (TKRs) and total hip replacements (THRs) has been increasing noticeably in high-income countries, such as Germany. In particular, the number of revisions is expected to rise because of higher life expectancy and procedures performed on younger patients, impacting the budgets of health-care systems. Quality transparency is the basis of holistic patient pathway optimization. Nevertheless, a nation-wide cross-sectoral assessment of quality from a patient perspective does not yet exist. Several studies have shown that the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is effective for measuring quality and monitoring post-treatment recovery. For the first time in Germany, we test whether early detection of critical recovery paths using PROMs after TKR/THR improves the quality of care in a cost-effective way and can be recommended for implementation into standard care. Methods/design The study is a two-arm multi-center patient-level randomized controlled trial. Patients from nine hospitals are included in the study. Patient-centered questionnaires are employed to regularly measure digitized PROMs of TKR/THR patients from the time of hospital admission until 12 months post-discharge. An expert consortium has defined PROM alert thresholds at 1, 3, and 6 months to signal critical recovery paths after TKR/THR. An algorithm alerts study assistants if patients are not recovering in line with expected recovery paths. The study assistants contact patients and their physicians to investigate and, if needed, adjust the post-treatment protocol. When sickness funds’ claims data are added, the cost-effectiveness of the intervention can be analyzed. Discussion The study is expected to deliver an important contribution to test PROMs as an intervention tool and examine the determinants of high-quality endoprosthetic care. Depending on a positive and cost-effective impact, the goal is to transfer the study design into standard care. During the trial design phase, several insights have been discovered, and there were opportunities for efficient digital monitoring limited by existing legacy care models. Digitalization in hospital processes and the implementation of digital tools still represent challenges for hospital personnel and patients. Furthermore, data privacy regulations and the separation between the in- and outpatient sector are roadblocks to effectively monitor and assess quality along the full patient pathway. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00019916 . Registered November 26, 2019 – retrospectively registered.

BackgroundBetween 2008 and 2018, the share of robotic-assisted surgeries (RAS) for radical prostatectomies (RPEs) has increased from 3 to 46% in Germany. Firstly, we investigate if this diffusion of RAS has contributed to RPE treatment centralization. Secondly, we analyze if a hospital’s use of an RAS system influenced patients’ hospital choice.MethodsTo analyze RPE treatment centralization, we use (bi-) annual hospital data from 2006 to 2018 for all German hospitals in a panel-data fixed effect model. For investigating RAS systems’ influence on patients’ hospital choice, we use patient level data of 4614 RPE patients treated in 2015. Employing a random utility choice model, we estimate the influence of RAS as well as specialization and quality on patients’ marginal utilities and their according willingness to travel.ResultsDespite a slight decrease in RPEs between 2006 and 2018, hospitals that invested in an RAS system could increase their case volumes significantly (+ 82% compared to hospitals that did not invest) contributing to treatment centralization. Moreover, patients are willing to travel longer for hospitals offering RAS (+ 22% than average travel time) and for specialization (+ 13% for certified prostate cancer treatment centers, + 9% for higher procedure volume). The influence of outcome quality and service quality on patients’ hospital choice is insignificant or negligible.ConclusionsIn conclusion, centralization is partly driven by (very) high-volume hospitals’ investment in RAS systems and patient preferences. While outcome quality might improve due to centralization and according specialization, evidence for a direct positive influence of RAS on RPE outcomes still is ambiguous. Patients have been voting with their feet, but research yet has to catch up.

Background The self-perceived health status of patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) might differ post-operatively due to gender, age, or comorbidities. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as the EQ-5D-5L measure the self-perceived health status. This study investigates whether the index score of the EQ-5D-5L is a valid tool for interpreting gender differences in outcomes for patients undergoing THA and TKA. Methods Routine and PROM-data of elective primary THA or TKA patients in two German hospitals between 2016 and 2018 were analyzed. Univariate analysis with Pearson’s chi-square was conducted to identify control variables for gender. To quantify the association between gender and the EQ-5D-5L dimensions, a cumulative odds ordinal logistic regression with proportional odds was conducted. Results Two thousand three hundred sixty-eight​​ THA patients (m = 978; f = 1390) and 1629 TKA patients (m = 715; f = 914) were considered. The regression analysis of the individual EQ-5D-5L dimensions showed that female gender was significantly associated with better self-care (THA and TKA) and better post-operative mobility (THA). In contrast, male gender was significantly associated with less pain/discomfort (TKA) and less anxiety/depression (THA) pre-surgery and 3-months post-surgery. Conclusion Our results confirmed that the self-perceived health status improved after surgery. However, due to the different associations of gender to the individual dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L, the weighted index score clouds the comparability between patients with different gender undergoing THA or TKA. Therefore, we argue to use the individual five dimensions for health status analysis, to reveal relevant additional information. Plain Language Summary Patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) can fill out standardized questionnaires pre- and post-surgery, such as the EQ-5D-5L, to measure the improvement in the self-perceived health status. The EQ-5D-5L includes mobility, self-care, usual activity, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. We do not know whether male and female patients experience the same improvement in the dimensions or whether significant differences exist. Currently, only index scores of the EQ-5D-5L are used for the comparison of pre- and post-operative health status. However, due to the questionnaire’s weighted composition, relevant changes in individual dimensions might be easily missed. Thus, we investigated whether significant differences between gender and the EQ-5D-5L dimensions in patients undergoing TKA and TKA are observable. We found that female patients reported significantly better scores in self-care (THA and TKA) and post-operative mobility (THA). In contrast, male gender was significantly associated with less pain/discomfort (TKA) and less anxiety/depression (THA) pre-surgery and 3-months post-surgery. The EQ-5D-5L’s weighted index score, however, does not directly represent these differences. Therefore, we argue to use the individual five dimensions for health status analysis, as relevant additional information on improvement over time would otherwise be missed.

Background As patient-reported outcomes (PROs) gain prominence in hip and knee arthroplasty (HA and KA), studies indicate PRO variations between genders. Research on the specific health domains particularly impacted is lacking. Hence, we aim to quantify the gender health gap in PROs for HA/KA patients, differentiating between general health, health-related quality of life (HrQoL), physical functioning, pain, fatigue, and depression. Methods The study included 3,693 HA patients (1,627 men, 2,066 women) and 3,110 KA patients (1,430 men, 1,680 women) receiving surgery between 2020 to 2021 in nine German hospitals, followed up until March 2022. Questionnaires used were: EQ-VAS, EQ-5D-5L, HOOS-PS, KOOS-PS, PROMIS-F-SF, PROMIS-D-SF, and a joint-specific numeric pain scale. PROs at admission, discharge, 12-months post-surgery, and the change from admission to 12-months (PRO-improvement) were compared by gender, tested for differences, and assessed using multivariate linear regressions. To enable comparability, PROs were transformed into z-scores (standard deviations from the mean). Results Observed differences between genders were small in all health domains and differences reduced over time. Men reported significantly better health versus women pre-HA (KA), with a difference of 0.252 (0.224) standard deviations from the mean for pain, 0.353 (0.243) for fatigue (PROMIS-F-SF), 0.327 (0.310) for depression (PROMIS-D-SF), 0.336 (0.273) for functionality (H/KOOS-PS), 0.177 (0.186) for general health (EQ-VAS) and 0.266 (0.196) for HrQoL (EQ-5D-5L). At discharge, the gender health gap reduced and even disappeared for some health dimensions since women improved in health to a greater extent than men. No gender health gap was observed in most PRO-improvements and at month 12. Conclusions Men experiencing slightly better health than women in all health dimensions before surgery while experiencing similar health benefits 12-months post-surgery, might be an indicator of men receiving surgery inappropriately early, women unnecessarily late or both. As studies often investigate the PRO-improvement, they miss pre-surgery gender differences, which could be an important target for improvement initiatives in patient-centric care. Moreover, future research on cutoffs for meaningful between-group PRO differences per measurement time would aid the interpretation of gender health disparities. Trial registration German Register for Clinical Trials, DRKS00019916, 26 November 2019.

Quality competition among hospitals, induced by patients freely choosing their hospital in a price regulated market, can only be realized if quality differences between hospitals are transparent, understandable, and thus influence patients’ hospital choice. We use data from ~145,000 German patients and ~ 900 hospitals for colorectal resections and knee replacements to investigate whether patients value quality and specialization when choosing their hospital. Using a random utility choice model, we estimate patients’ marginal utilities, willingness to travel and change in hospital demand for quality improvements. Patients respond to service quality and specialization and thus, quality competition seems to be present. Colorectal resection patients are willing to travel longer for more specialized hospitals (+9% for procedure volume, +9% for certification). Knee replacement patients travel longer for hospitals with better service quality (+6%) and higher procedure volume (+12%). However, clinical quality indicators, often difficult to access and interpret, barely play a role in patients’ hospital choice. Furthermore, we find that competition on quality for colorectal resection is rather local, whereas for knee replacement we observe regional competition patterns.

Hospital digitalization aims to increase efficiency, reduce costs, and/ or improve quality of care. To assess a digitalization-quality relationship, we investigate the association between process digitalization and process and outcome quality. We use data from the German DigitalRadar (DR) project from 2021 and combine these data with two process (preoperative waiting time for osteosynthesis and hip replacement surgery after femur fracture, n = 516 and 574) and two outcome quality indicators (mortality ratio of patients hospitalized for outpatient-acquired pneumonia, n = 1,074; ratio of new decubitus cases, n = 1,519). For each indicator, we run a univariate and a multivariate regression. We measure process digitalization holistically by specifying three models with different explanatory variables: (1) the total DR-score (0 (not digitalized) to 100 (fully digitalized)), (2) the sum of DR-score sub-dimensions’ scores logically associated with an indicator, and (3) sub-dimensions’ separate scores. For the process quality indicators, all but one of the associations are insignificant. A greater DR-score is weakly associated with a lower mortality ratio of pneumonia patients (p < 0.10 in the multivariate regression). In contrast, higher process digitalization is significantly associated with a higher ratio of decubitus cases (p < 0.01 for models (1) and (2), p < 0.05 for two sub-dimensions in model (3)). Regarding decubitus, our finding might be due to better diagnosis, documentation, and reporting of decubitus cases due to digitalization rather than worse quality. Insignificant and inconclusive results might be due to the indicators’ inability to reflect quality variation and digitalization effects between hospitals. For future research, we recommend investigating within hospital effects with longitudinal data.

Background The complex, multidimensional nature of healthcare quality makes provider and treatment decisions based on quality difficult. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures can enhance patient centricity and involvement. The proliferation of PRO measures, however, requires a simplification to improve comprehensibility. Composite measures can simplify complex data without sacrificing the underlying information. Objective and methods We propose a five-step development approach to combine different PRO into one composite measure (PRO-CM): (i) theoretical framework and metric selection, (ii) initial data analysis, (iii) rescaling, (iv) weighting and aggregation, and (v) sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. We evaluate different rescaling, weighting, and aggregation methods by utilizing data of 3145 hip and 2605 knee replacement patients, to identify the most advantageous development approach for a PRO-CM that reflects quality variations from a patient perspective. Results The comparison of different methods within steps (iii) and (iv) reveals the following methods as most advantageous: (iii) rescaling via z-score standardization and (iv) applying differential weights and additive aggregation. The resulting PRO-CM is most sensitive to variations in physical health. Changing weighting schemes impacts the PRO-CM most directly, while it proves more robust towards different rescaling and aggregation approaches. Conclusion Combining multiple PRO provides a holistic picture of patients’ health improvement. The PRO-CM can enhance patient understanding and simplify reporting and monitoring of PRO. However, the development methodology of a PRO-CM needs to be justified and transparent to ensure that it is comprehensible and replicable. This is essential to address the well-known problems associated with composites, such as misinterpretation and lack of trust.