Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 289, Issue 1, pp 7–12 | Cite as

The concept of the certification system of the German Cancer Society and its impact on gynecological cancer care

Review

Abstract

Purpose

This article describes the status of gynecological cancer care in Germany and gives an overview of the certification of gynecological cancer care by the German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft DKG). The DKG certifies cancer centers to promote a high-quality level in the treatment of oncological patients.

Methods

Searches were conducted in PubMed and ScienceDirect to identify the relevant literature. Catalog of requirements for centers certification as well as benchmark reports were used to characterize cancer care in centers certified by DKG.

Results and conclusions

The certification system of the DKG has been developed to ensure comprehensive care for cancer patients in Germany. The criteria for certification are based on interdisciplinary and inter-professional care conforming to guidelines and specialist expertise. These requirements have been shown to improve structural and process quality, and thus satisfaction and health outcomes in patients.

Keywords

German Cancer Society Certification Gynecological Cancers Centers National Cancer Plan Quality management Oncological care 

References

  1. 1.
    Atlas of cancer incidence and mortality of the Association of Population-based Cancer Registries in Germany (GEKID) „The GEKID Atlas“. Results of the projection for Germany (data delivery: December of 2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Statistisches Bundesamt, Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden (2006) Germany’s population by 2050. Results of the 11th coordinated population projectionGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R et al (2009) Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol 10:327–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Menon U, Jatinderpal K, Jacobs I (2012) The UKCTOCS experience––reasons for hope? Int J Gynecol Cancer 22:18–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bristow RE, Palis BE, Chi DS, Cliby WA (2010) The national cancer database report on advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: impact of hospital surgical case volume on overall survival and surgical treatment paradigm. Gynecol Oncol 118:262–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumpulainen S et al (2009) The effect of hospital operative volume, residual tumor and first-line chemotherapy on survival of ovarian cancer––a prospective nation-wide study in Finland. Gynecol Oncol 115(2):199–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heintz AP, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, Quinn MA, Benedet JL, Creasman WT et al (2006) Carcinoma of the ovary. FIGO 26th annual report on the results of treatment in gynecological cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 95:161–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mercado C et al (2010) Quality of care in advanced ovarian cancer: the importance of provider specialty. Gynecol Oncol 117:18–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hacker NF (2011) Quality control in ovarian cancer surgery. Ann Oncol 22(Suppl 8):viii19–viii22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bristow RE, Zahurak ML, Diaz-Montes TP, Giuntoli RL, Armstrong DK (2009) Impact of surgeon and hospital ovarian cancer surgical case volume on in-hospital mortality and related short-term outcomes. Gynecol Oncol 115:334–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wright JD, Lewin SN, Deutsch I, Burke WM, Sun X, Herzog TJ (2011) The influence of surgical volume on morbidity and mortality of radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 225.e1–225.e7Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ, Brennan MF (1998) Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. J Am Med Assoc 280:1747–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Junor EJ, Hole DJ, McNulty L, Mason M, Young J (1999) Specialist gynaecologists and survival outcome in ovarian cancera Scottish national study of 1866 patients. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106:1130–1136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Munstedt K, von Georgi R, Misselwitz B, Zygmunt M, Stillger R, Künzel W (2003) Centralizing surgery for gynecologic oncology—a strategy assuring better quality treatment? Gynecol Oncol 89(1):4–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    du Bois A, Rochon J, Pfisterer J, Hoskins WJ (2009) Variations in institutional infrastructure, physician specialization and experience, and outcome in ovarian cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 112(2):422–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Munstedt K, von Georgi R, Zygmunt M et al (2002) Shortcomings and deficits in surgical treatment of gynaecological cancers: a German problem only? Gynecol Oncol 86(3):337–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wesselmann S (2012) Entwicklung der Zertifizierungsverfahren für Organkrebszentren und Onkologische Zentren der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft. Der Onkologe 18:511–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beckmann MW et al (2007) Dreistufenmodell optimiert Behandlung unter Kostendeckung. Wie die künftigen Strukturen der onkologischen Versorgung in Deutschland aussehen sollten. Dtsch Arztebl 04(44):3004–3009Google Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Questionnaire gynecological cancer center (2013) http://www.onkozert.de/gynzentren.htm. Accessed 05 Nov 2013
  21. 21.
    German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO), S3 LL Ovarian Carcinoma, Version 1 (2013) http://leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/Leitlinien.7.0.html. Accessed 31 July 2013
  22. 22.
    German Cancer Society. Benchmarking report of the certified gynecological cancer centers. (2013) http://www.krebsgesellschaft.de/download/gz_jahresbericht-2013-a1_130604.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2013
  23. 23.
    Beckmann MW et al (2011) Qualitätsgesicherte Versorgung in zertifizierten Brustzentren und Optimierung der Behandlung von Patientinnen mit einem Mammakarzinom. Senologie Zeitschrift für Mammadiagnostik und therapie 8:A16Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heil J, Gondos A, Rauch G, Marmé F, Rom J, Golatta M, Junkermann H, Sinn P, Aulmann S, Debus J, Hof H, Schütz F, Brenner H, Sohn C, Schneeweiss A (2012) Outcome analysis of patients with primary breast cancer initially treated at a certified academic breast unit. The Breast 21(3):303–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kowalski C, Wesselmann S, Kreienberg R, Schulte H, Pfaff H (2012) Zertifizierte Brustkrebszentren aus Sicht der Patientinnen: Stärken und Verbesserungspotenziale. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 72:137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huthmann D, Seufferlein T, Post S, Benz S, Stinner B, Wesselmann S (2012) Zertifizierte Darmkrebszentren aus Sicht der Zentrumsleitungen: Ergebnisse einer Schlüsselpersonenbefragung. Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie 50(8):753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kowalski C, Wesselmann S, Ansmann L, Kreienberg R, Pfaff H (2012) Zertifizierte Brustkrebszentren aus Sicht der Zentrumsleitungen: Ergebnisse einer Schlüsselpersonen-Befragung. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 72:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft e. V.BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Universitätsklinikum ErlangenErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations