Leader: Health ClusterNET
WP1 focuses on ensuring that the project is well managed & meets all objectives. It includes administrative & managerial tasks. Key outputs are: organization of core group meetings & contacts (mailing list, web-conferences, etc), production of mid term & final reports in liaison with the Main Partner, Tasks include: ensuring WPs are in line with time schedules; organise information/ communication about WP activities; reporting (interim & final reports) & maintain contact with EAHC; liaising with other EU projects; organising core group meetings & final conference; coordinating & supporting all core WPs including flow of information among partners; coordinating cooperation of Associate & Collaborating Partners & all other stakeholders involved; supporting dissemination of results & to work with DG SANCO/ECPC/EPAAC.
Effective quality management will mean structured problem solving, continuous monitoring against work plans, & using process management tools. This will be part of a sound system of efficient project management & coordination. Its effectiveness is found in the quality of the work delivered.
Leader: Alleanza Contro il Cancro
It mixes active & passive dissemination methods. It builds on ACC expertise, established websites and other tested tools. It is driven by a commitment to freely accessible public knowledge. Project information is disseminated from the start via partner networks to identified target audiences. 2 biannual special editions of the OECI eNewsletter will be sent to stakeholders with latest project news, outputs & outcomes. The broad range of partners extended networks will ensure effective dissemination & continues beyond project completion.
The WP will deliver light, attractive, user friendly specific project webpages hosted by the OECI website to maximize knowledge sharing, learning & actions. These webpages are linked to the STARTOECI website giving more possibility to share knowledge to all cancer professionals that daily interact with that project (more than 20,000 contacts/month). Website pages structure & content will be developed with ‘users’ & stakeholder group inputs. The websitepages will be linked to other websites & information channels e.g. EurocanPlatform, ECPC, EPAAC, EACR,national cancer network websites (FNLCC, ACC, the Netherlands cancer network, the German network...), ecermedicalscience. These are key channels to share information about project results, activities, conferences using press releases, newsletters, brochures, briefing papers, scientific papers, project reports.
Leader: Organisation of European Cancer Institutes
Evaluation has routine & dynamic parts. The former includes systematic collection of information about activities, meeting expectations & outcomes to inform judgments about project performance, strategies, work quality, cost efficiency & decisions about future work. The Core Group will be regularly briefed. At the CG meetings, we will discuss how work has progressed so far & if the project is right on track. If there have been delays or other obstacles, OECI will moderate analysis and solutions through the CG. OECI will especially check if deliverables have been fulfilled, delayed and how to resolve problems.
Leader: The Netherland Cancer Institute “Antoni van Leeuwen”
Benchmarking specialty hospitals or focused services in such a way that meaningful suggestions for improvement result, needs to be performed in a thorough & sufficiently qualitative way. This differs from a rather superficial approach of comparing a score of indicators from available administrative data. Indicators may be used to identify improvement areas, but sufficient qualitative in depth analysis is needed to guide centers on actual improvement activities. This also provides information to justify choices on best practice identification & presentation. From work in operations management literature an NKI group (Van Lent et.al 2010, 2012, Van Bokhorst et.al 2010) explored the technology of benchmarking in cancer centers, cancer services (radiotherapy) & cancer related research. A structured,13-step method, was developed and implemented. Important success factors include: internal stakeholders commitment; construction of a structured comparison format; relating indicator selection to the time span of the study. Resources are guaranteed through the commitment of institutions at board level & relevant scope is guaranteed through the selection of the specific cancer domain.
The tool will be constructed in close communication with stakeholders and reflect differing contexts and data for CCCs and tumour services The center-based benchmark will contain more organizational aspects/indicators, & the service-based benchmark will focus on process characteristics, clinical aspects & outcomes.
After feedback is produced & best practices identified, this is communicated with the centers in a conference, after which improvement plans are to be drafted. The result of this WP is a benchmark format for interdisciplinary cancer care at both center and tumour service levels, the identification of best practices & a format to disseminate these, recommendations for improvement per benchmarked site & a number of improvement plans.
Leader: National Institute of Oncology
The tools will be piloted in sites in 3 geographic EU clusters. Each site conducts a BM exercise and is visited by an external review group. These sites are composed of: West/North (Berlin, Helsinki, King’s London, Heidelberg); South (Barcelona, Porto, Bari,Milan); Central & Eastern (Poznan, Vilnuis, Budapest). In addition to the 3 geographic clusters, the subjects are assessed in three development categories: full, medium and promising/potential. Data collection in pilot sites will have 2 parts (i) description of pilot site organisation with an agreed number of indicator sets describing the comprehensive care context (ii) modeling performance of comprehensive cancer centres or cancer departments/units at general hospitals by several matrices e.g. organizational objectives/intermediaries (staff/teams); intermediaries/services; services/patient outcome enablers; translational research or medicine-related data. Using corrections for purchasing power (van Bokhorst et.al.) some analyses will be performed on all participating centers, for instance using data envelopment techniques. Some benchmarking methods are of limited value because they rely on ratio analysis that is fairly simplistic and does not allow for comparisons across organizations of different sizes, focus or risk profiles. One way to improve benchmarking efforts is an analytical technique called data envelopment analysis (DEA), which performs complex mathematical optimization of inputs (resources consumed) and outputs of healthcare production processes to facilitate comparison of one organization to others making adjustments for scale.
The benchmarking tool foresees a detailed budget impact analysis. Therefore, WP6 is designed to provide an analytical framework to analyze budget impact and to learn using pilot testing. WP5 is focused on benchmarking the financial performance and operational efficiency of comprehensive cancer centres and cancer departments/units at general hospitals. The WP5 has four distinct stages. First, a BIA framework will be drafted and refined in discussion with collaborating partners. This includes the services to include in the BIA, the standardization of data collection to allow comparison between study centers and the level of detail to account costs. Then data collection through internet and public databases for all participating CCC’s and tumor services will commence. Since hospitals typically do use different cost information systems, a variety of cost accounting problems may be identified that hamper hospitals' understanding of their relative costs and performance. Hence, the quantitative and qualitative data collection will be piloted in 2-3 pilot sites representing three geographic clusters across the EU. The pilot sites will be selected in discussion with the WP4 lead and Advisory Group members to optimize data collection procedures. Data will be used to model performance of CCC and tumor services. Finally, WP5 systematically evaluates and documents data collection practices to be able to improve future benchmarking activities and update the benchmarking manual.
Leader: Gustave Roussy
The manual is aimed at the groups engaged in comprehensive cancer care through interdisciplinary treatment of patients (clinical staff, management, patients/carers and service funders). These groups will approach benchmarking in two ways: those who are new to benchmarking (to help them understand what it is, how it is done and what the potential benefits are); those who are already familiar with the use of benchmarking (to provide a set of standards and common procedures). The structure and content of the manual will be informed by collaborating partner experiences with benchmarking and similar assessment processes (especially from the patient perspective) and learning from BENCH-CAN drawing on pilot site experiences from internal benchmarking group and external review panel perspectives; budget impact analysis; identified best practices and refinement of the two tools for use in comprehensive cancer centres and tumour services; compatibility with related services e.g. OECI accreditation & designation, EurocanPlatform WP12 Excellence Designation System. It will be important to make sure that the benchmarking tools can be integrated in the accreditation and designation tool and as a stand-alone tool. In this way, any centre participating in the accreditation designation program of the OECI would be able to get instantly access to the benchmarking results of the tools. From a user point of view, this would avoid having to provide data for different programs, and allow them to get the most from their participation in a single accreditation designation-benchmarking program. The structure of the manual will include the following sections: Introduction; About benchmarking CCC in centres and services; the 13-step guide; templates for centres and services, frequently asked questions, references.