Shaw M, Wolfe C, Raju K S, Papadopoulos A
Department of Public Health Sciences, The Guy's, King's College and St Thomas' Hospitals Schools of Medicine, Guy's Campus, London, UK.
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2003;24(3-4):246-50.
To evaluate the appropriateness of the structure and the process of care for gynaecological cancer against national guidelines.
SETTING & SAMPLE: Incident cases of ovarian and cervical cancer managed between 1 January, 1999 and 31 December, 2000 in the South East of England.
Completion of an audit form, by a researcher, using the clinical record. Qualitative interviews with gynaecologists at each hospital.
Whether hospitals meet the requirements for being a 'centre' or a 'unit' for gynaecological cancer and whether gynaecologists manage ovarian or cervical cancer according to the guidelines.
Stage was recorded in the notes of 53% (262/492) of women with ovarian cancer but information to assist in determining stage was recorded in 86%. Of women who had a stage recorded by the consultant, who should have had a laparotomy and be referred for chemotherapy, 81% (169/209) were managed according to the guidelines, ignoring whether there was removal of disease to nodules of less than 1 cm. Stage was recorded in the notes of 60% (188/315) of women with cervical cancer, although information relevant to staging the patient was recorded in 66%. Overall 76% (142/188) of women with stage recorded in the notes were managed according to the guidelines but 40% (127/315) of women audited were not assessable. Only one site met the criteria for being a cancer centre. Of the remaining sites, most striking was the inability to assemble a team of professionals, including a radiologist, a pathologist and an oncology nurse to discuss individual patient care.
Retrospective note audits will be hampered by missing data in the clinical record until systems are developed to improve the quality of notes. This research suggests that guidelines based on FIGO staging for the management of ovarian and cervical cancer are not followed and that this may be associated with incomplete cancer management teams.
对照国家指南评估妇科癌症护理结构和过程的适宜性。
1999年1月1日至2000年12月31日在英格兰东南部管理的卵巢癌和宫颈癌新发病例。
研究人员通过临床记录填写审核表。对每家医院的妇科医生进行定性访谈。
医院是否符合作为妇科癌症“中心”或“单位”的要求,以及妇科医生是否根据指南管理卵巢癌或宫颈癌。
53%(262/492)卵巢癌女性患者的病历记录了分期,但86%记录了有助于确定分期的信息。在应由顾问记录分期、应接受剖腹手术并转诊接受化疗的女性患者中,81%(169/209)按照指南进行管理,未考虑是否切除了直径小于1厘米的病灶结节。60%(188/315)宫颈癌女性患者的病历记录了分期,尽管66%记录了与患者分期相关的信息。总体而言,病历记录了分期的女性患者中有76%(142/188)按照指南进行管理,但接受审核的女性患者中有40%(127/315)无法评估。只有一个机构符合癌症中心的标准。在其余机构中,最突出的是无法组建包括放射科医生、病理科医生和肿瘤护理护士在内的专业团队来讨论个别患者的护理。
在开发提高病历质量的系统之前,回顾性病历审核将因临床记录中数据缺失而受阻。本研究表明,基于国际妇产科联盟(FIGO)分期管理卵巢癌和宫颈癌的指南未得到遵循,这可能与癌症管理团队不完整有关。