BackgroundTo improve quality of care, centralisation of cancer services in high-volume centres has been stimulated. Studies linking specialisation and high (surgical) volumes to better outcomes already appeared in the 1990’s. However, actual centralisation was a difficult process in many countries. In this study, factors influencing the centralisation of cancer services in the Netherlands were determined.Material and methodsCentralisation patterns were studied for three types of cancer that are known to benefit from high surgical caseloads: oesophagus-, pancreas- and bladder cancer. The Netherlands Cancer Registry provided data on tumour and treatment characteristics from 2000–2013 for respectively 8037, 4747 and 6362 patients receiving surgery. By plotting timelines of centralisation of cancer surgery, relations with the appearance of (inter)national scientific evidence, actions of medical specialist societies, specific regulation and other important factors on the degree of centralisation were ascertained.ResultsFor oesophagus and pancreas cancer, a gradual increase in centralisation of surgery is seen from 2005 and 2006 onwards following (inter)national scientific evidence. Centralisation steps for bladder cancer surgery can be seen in 2010 and 2013 anticipating on the publication of norms by the professional society. The most influential stimulus seems to have been regulations on minimum volumes.ConclusionScientific evidence on the relationship between volume and outcome lead to the start of centralisation of surgical cancer care in the Netherlands. Once a body of evidence has been established on organisational change that influences professional practice, in addition some form of regulation is needed to ensure widespread implementation.

Background:Organisational external peer review was introduced in 1994 in the Netherlands to improve multidisciplinary cancer care. We examined the clinical impact of this programme on colorectal cancer care.Methods:Patients with primary colorectal cancer were included from 23 participating hospitals and 7 controls. Hospitals from the intervention group were dichotomised by their implementation proportion (IP) of the recommendations from each peer review (high IP vs low IP). Outcome measures were the introduction of new multidisciplinary therapies and survival.Results:In total, 45 705 patients were included (1990–2010). Patients from intervention hospitals more frequently received adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer. T2–3/M0 rectal cancer patients from hospitals with a high IP had a higher chance of receiving preoperative radiotherapy (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11–1.55) compared with the controls and low IP group (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63–0.88). There were no differences in the use of preoperative chemoradiation for T4/M0 rectal cancer. Survival was slightly higher in colon cancer patients from intervention hospitals but unrelated to the phase of the programme in which the hospital was at the time of diagnosis.Conclusions:Some positive effects of external peer review on cancer care were found, but the results need to be interpreted cautiously due to the ambiguity of the outcomes and possible confounding factors.

External peer review was introduced in general hospitals in the Netherlands in 1994 to assess and improve the multidisciplinary team approach in cancer care. This paper aims to explore the value, perceived impact, and (future) role of external peer review in cancer care. Semistructured interviews were held with clinicians, oncology nurses, and managers from fifteen general hospitals that participated in three rounds of peer review over a period of 16 years. Interviewees reflected on the goals and expectations, experiences, perceived impact, and future role of external peer review. Transcriptions of the interviews were coded to discover recurrent themes. Improving clinical care and organization were the main motives for participation. Positive impact was perceived on multiple aspects of care such as shared responsibilities, internal prioritization of cancer care, improved communication, and a clear structure and position of cancer care within general hospitals. Establishing a direct relationship between the external peer review and organizational or clinical impact proved to be difficult. Criticism was raised on the content of the program being too theoretical and organization‐focussed after three rounds. According to most stakeholders, external peer review can improve multidisciplinary team work in cancer care; however, the acceptance is threatened by a perceived disbalance between effort and visible clinical impact. Leaner and more clinically focused programs are needed to keep repeated peer reviews challenging and worthwhile.