Great interest in results from the quality registers

For the first time, the results will be presented already in the spring, which means that the health trusts now have a unique opportunity to quality assure their activities close to the relevant patient pathways.

The Cancer Registry of Norway experiences good support for the quality registries, both when it comes to reporting and use of the results from the registries.

"Timely results of good quality depend on good reporting to the quality registers. This year, 5 out of 10 registers have a coverage rate of over 90%. Now we are able to publish data early without compromising on quality," says Liv Marit Dørum, Head of Quality Registers.

The results from the quality registries are presented in meetings with the directors of the regional health authorities. Many health trusts are also interested in having their own review of the results.

"It is in the departments of the health trusts that the results from the quality registries can really be applied," explains Dørum.

Solid dividends from the reports

Telemark is one of the hospitals that has good reporting to all the quality registries and makes active use of the results from the quality registries.

"For several years, we have had cancer as a strategic focus area," says Halfrid Waage, medical director at Telemark Hospital. We have made it clear that good reporting is a prerequisite for trusting that the results are representative. Both senior management and key professionals have agreed on this.

Telemark Hospital has been one of several health trusts that have invited the Cancer Registry of Norway to a joint review of results for relevant professionals and managers.

"This review of results and improvement areas has increased engagement and given a boost and energy to the work," says Waage.

Co-selection and drug cancer treatment

In recent years, the Cancer Registry of Norway has had an increased focus on collecting patients' experiences with the health services and their quality of life after treatment. New this year is that we are now collecting and presenting patients' experiences in the annual reports for melanoma and colorectal cancer. The annual report from the Melanoma Registry shows that 69 % of patients who wanted co-choice felt that they were involved in their choice of treatment. Information about late effects and the patient's perception of co-choice will be important to follow in the future.

"We find that the health trusts are particularly keen to follow up patients' feedback about their experiences," says Dørum.

We have also received more information about drug cancer treatment in the quality registries. Several of the annual reports contain good presentations of drug cancer treatment distributed among the health trusts.

For lung cancer, we present the proportion of patients who received immunotherapy by the health trusts. Here we have retrieved data from the health trusts' professional systems and compared them with information on the patient's disease prevalence. Immunotherapy is a relevant treatment for patients in stages III and IV, and we see some variation between the health trusts.

When we look at lung cancer and pancreatic cancer, we present an overview of the proportion of patients who have received drug cancer treatment within four weeks before they die. These proportions should be kept low in order to reduce the burden on the patient's health during the final lifetime.

"Over the next year, the quality registries will continue to work on analyses of drug treatment for the various types of cancer. Here we are dependent on good cooperation between the oncologists in the professional councils, the quality registry manager and the statistician so that we get as relevant representations as possible," concludes Dørum. 

The reports from the quality registers can be found here.