BackgroundDue to increasing the complexity of breast cancer treatment it is of paramount importance to develop structured care in order to avoid a chaotic and non-consistent management of patients. Clinical pathways, a result of the adaptation of the documents used in industrial quality management namely the Standard Operating Procedures, can be used to improve efficiency and quality of care. They also aim to re-centre the focus on the patient’s overall journey, rather than the contribution of each specialty or caring function independently.MethodsThe effect of the implementation and prospective systematic evaluation of a clinical care pathway for the management of patients with early breast cancer in a single breast unit is evaluated over a long time interval (between 2002 and 2010). Annual analysis of predefined clinical outcome measures, service indicators, team indicators, process indicators and financial indicators was performed. Pathway quality control meetings were organized at least once a year. Systematic feedback was given to the team members, and if necessary the pathway was adapted according to evidence based literature data and in house pathway related data in order to improve quality.ResultsThe annual number of patients included in the pathway (289 vs. 390, P <0.01), proportion of patients with Tis-T1 tumors (42% vs. 58%, P <0.01), negative lymph nodes (44% vs. 58%, P <0.01) and no metastases at diagnosis (91.5% vs. 95.9%) has risen significantly between 2002 and 2010. Evolution of mandatory quality indicators defined by EUSOMA shows a significant improvement of quality of cancer care. Particularly, the proportion of patients having anti-hormonal therapy (84.8% vs. 97.4%, P = 0.002) and adjuvant chemotherapy according to the guidelines (72% vs. 95.6%, P = 0.028) increased dramatically. Patient satisfaction improved significantly (P <0.05). Progression free 4-year survival was significantly higher for all patients, for T1 tumors only and for T2-T4 tumors only, treated between 2006 to 2008 compared to between 1999 to 2002 and 2003 to 2005 (P = 0.006, P = 0.05, P = 0.06, respectively). Overall 4-year survival of the entire population treated between 2006 and 2008 was significantly better (P = 0.05).ConclusionsAlthough the patient characteristics changed over the years due to better screening, this clinical pathway and regular audit of quality indicators for the treatment of patients with operable breast cancer proved to be important tools to improve the quality of care, patient satisfaction and outcome.

Abstract. Hospitals increasingly use process models for structuring their care processes. Activities performed to patients are logged to a database but these data are rarely used for managing and improving the efficiency of care processes and quality of care. In this paper, we propose a synergy of process mining with data discovery techniques. In particular, we analyze a dataset consisting of the activities performed to 148 patients during hospitalization for breast cancer treatment in a hospital in Belgium. We expose multiple quality of care issues that will be resolved in the near future, discover process variations and best practices and we discover issues with the data registration system. For example, 25 % of patients receiving breast-conserving therapy did not receive the key intervention "revalidation''. We found this was caused by lowering the length of stay in the hospital over the years without modifying the care process. Whereas the process representations offered by Hidden Markov Models are easier to use than those offered by Formal Concept Analysis, this data discovery technique has proven to be very useful for analyzing process anomalies and exceptions in detail.

No abstract

Aim: To describe the effects of the development, implementation and prospective systematic evaluation and adaptation of a clinical care pathway for the management of patients with early breast cancer between 2002 and 2010) in a single breast unit. Materials and methods: In 2002 a clinical pathway was developed by the multidisciplinary breast team of the Sint Augustinus Hospital for de diagnosis and treatment of patients with operable breast cancer. Performance measurements were documented systematically by care providers using an order communication, planning and result reporting system. Annual analysis of predefined clinical outcome measures and indicators was performed. Based on these data and evidence based guidelines the pathway was regularly adapted to improve patient care. Results: The annual number of patients included in the pathway (289 vs 390, p 0.01) ), proportion of patients with Tis-T1 tumors (42% vs 58 %, p 0.01), negative lymph nodes (44% vs 58%, p &lt; 0.01)) and no metastases at diagnosis (91.5% vs 95.9%) has risen significantly between 2002 and 2010. Histological subtypes remained the same. The average length of hospital stay (7.0 days vs 4.1 days, p 0.01) nearly halved and the proportion of breast conserving surgery (BCS) (43% vs 57%), preoperative guide wire localization (14% vs 27%) for impalpable lesions and use of sentinel node biopsy (0% vs 49%) increased significantly (p 0.01). Evolution of quality indicators defined by Eusoma (www.eusomadb.org/indicators.htm) between 2002 and 2010 shows a significant improvement of cancer care: proportion of positive of preoperative histologic diagnosis (59.7% vs 88.4%, p 0.001), more then 9 lymph nodes removed when axillary clearance performed (85.6 vs 91.4%, p&lt; 0.04), BCS for invasive carcinoma up to 3 cm (62.0% vs 82.6%, p 0.016), BCS for DCIS up to 20 mm (43.8% vs 78.6%, p 0.016), hormone therapy in endocrine sensitive tumor (84.8% vs 97.4%, p 0.002), adjuvant chemotherapy in ER negative (PT1c or N+) invasive carcinoma (72% vs 95.6% p 0.028), proportion of second surgery (25% vs 10%, p 0.001) and clear margins after last operation (95% vs 99%, p 0.02). All mandatory EUSOMA requirements were fulfilled in 2010. Patient satisfaction improved significantly over the years (13/19 measured parameters p &lt;0.05 between 2002–2010). Progression free 4 year survival was significantly higher for all patients, for T1 tumors only and for T2-T4 tumors only, treated in 2006–2008 compared to 1999–2002 and 2003–2005 (respectively p 0.006, p 0.05, p 0.06). Overall 4 year survival of the entire M0 population treated in 2006–2008 was significantly better (p 0.05) Conclusion: Although the patient characteristics changed over the years due to better screening, this clinical pathway for the treatment of patients operable breast cancer proved to be an important tool to improve the quality of patient care and patient satisfaction. Better adherence to guidelines and constant feedback of treatment data to the breast team contributes to a superior patient outcome. Measuring quality indicators proved useful to develop quality measures improving patient care. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-23-06.

No abstract