1. Brussels 14-05-2013 Prof. W.H. van Harten MD. Ph.D.
BenchCan launch
Brussels
Prof. W.H. van Harten MD. Ph.D.

2. Benchcan Launch Objective Workpackages and WP leaders
Collaborating partners
Planning
Stakeholders

3. Benchcan Launch Objective Workpackages and WP leaders
Collaborating partners
Planning
Stakeholders

4. BenchCanObjective
Benchmarking Comprehensive & Interdisciplinary Cancer Care
Yielding examples of Best practices
Definition of “Comprehensive”
- in Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCI & OECI)
- comprehensive cancer care (as in OECI
accreditation)

5. “Comprehensiveness”
Organisational and technical complexity of cancer care increases.
Integration of research and care (translation from bench to bedside)
Difference between Cancer center and deprtment/unit/tumor service
Geographic differences

6. Benchcan WorkPackages
WP1 Coordination; Health Cluster Net (UK) Jonathan Watson
WP2 Dissemination; Allianza Contro Cancro (IT) Dr Franzesca D’Allessandro………
WP3 Evaluation; OECI (EU),Claudio Lombardo
WP4 Benchmark Tool Development, NKI (Amsterdam), Prof Van Harten & Anke Wind

7. Benchcan WorkPackages
WP5 Coordination of benchmark piloting NIO/Budapest DR Jozsef Lovey
WP6 Budget Impact Analysis PANAXEA/Twente (NL) Prof IJzerman & Van Dijk
WP7 Benchmarking Manual IGR-Paris (FR) Dr Saghatchian

8. BenchCan Collaborating Partners
European Patients Coalition Chair Hudson
Pilot sites: Heidelberg - Von Kalle; Inst Catalan d’Oncol/Barc. - Calle; Inst of Oncol Vilnius - Jarnulionis; Inst Tumori Giovanni Paolo Bari - Paradiso; Greater Poland Cancer Center Poznan - Czerniewicz; Helsinki Univ. - Joensuu; Kings Health London - Sullivan; Charite Berlin - Schlag; Inst de Oncol. Port. Porto - Pontes; NIO Budapest - Lovey; Aghii Anargiri Athens - Samandas

9. BenchCan Planning Biannual Core group meetings
OECI evaluation work plan M3
Framework for BIA M6
Draft Benchmark tool (1 and 2!!) M14
Pilot on site M17; Final tool M34
Draft structure Manual M19; online M34
Improvement action plans M34

10. BenchCan Stakeholders
European Agency of healthcare and Consumers
Professional organisations (ESMO, ESO ECCO)
OECI membership and European Hospitals
AACI
…….

11. BenchCan Launch (1) Agenda meeting:
Welcome (Guy Dargent, Executive Agency for Health and
Consumers and Prof Wim H van Harten, OECI)
Introduction to the Bench-Can project - EU & regional
relevance - Policy implications
(Prof Wim H van Harten & Germana Gianquinto - OECI)
Review of Bench-Can core work packages - Methods & key
milestones (NKI-AVL, NIO, PANAXEA, IGR)
Benchmark development Wim van Harten – NKI
Benchmark piloting Jozsef Lovey - NIO
Budget impact analysis Maarten IJzerman – PANAXEA
Benchmarking manual Fréderique Thonon - IGR

12. BenchCan Launch (2)
Agenda continued: Review of project management issues (HCN, ACC, OECI) Coordination (timetable – key deliverables) Monitoring & Evaluation (used approaches) Communications & Dissemination (methods & means) Working with the Advisory group and the pilot regions (members & the 1st meeting) Questions & Answers - Summary of agreements & action points - Timing of the next meetings 1100 Close of the CG meeting

13. International benchmarking of specialty hospitals
International benchmarking of specialty hospitals. A series of case studies on comprehensive cancer centres
Wineke AM van Lent, Relinde D de Beer and Wim H van Harten
BMC Health Services Research 2010, 10:253

14. Objectives
Benchmarking is one of the methods used in business that is applied to hospitals to improve the management of their operations
International comparison between hospitals can explain performance differences
Trend towards specialization of hospitals
Objectives:
Examines the benchmarking process
Identify success factors of benchmarking in international specialized cancer centres

15. Methods
Three independent international benchmarking studies on operations management in cancer centres
Comprehensive cancer centres (CCC)
Chemotherapy day units (CDU)
Radiotherapy departments were included in the final study.
Per multiple case study a research protocol was used to structure the benchmarking process.
After reviewing the multiple case studies, the resulting description was used to study the research objectives

16. Benchmarking Multiple case study 1 Multiple case study 2
Operations management in Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCC)
Operations management in Chemotherapy day units (CDU)
Operations management in Radiotherapy departments (RT)
Total organization
Unit level
Department level
Comprehensive cancer centres
Part of comprehensive cancer centres
Only medication related treatments
Size: minimum of three linear accelerators
1 with perceived high
efficiency, 1 with >50beds
Strategy
Patient case mix
3 European partners
3; 2 from Europe, 1 USA
4 European partners

17. BenchCan Launch Benchmark activity Spendolini Case 1: CCC Case 2: CDU
Case 3: Radiotherapy
Determine what to benchmark
Form a benchmarking team
Choose benchmarking partners
Define and verify the main characteristics of the partners
Identify stakeholders
Construct a framework to structure the indicators
Develop relevant and comparable indicators
Stakeholders select indicators
Measure the set of performance indicators
Analyse performance differences
Take action: results were presented in a report and recommendations were given
Develop improvement plans
Implement the improvement plans
Evaluation of the implementation + -
+ = used in benchmarking case study
- = not used in benchmarking case study

19. BechCan Launch
Success factors for international benchmarking on operations management
Step in Figure 1
Internal stakeholders should be convinced that others might have developed solutions for problems that can be translated to their own setting.
Step 1
Management must reserve sufficient resources for the total benchmark
Limit the scope to a well-defined problem
Define criteria to verify the comparability of the benchmarking partners on subject & process
Step 4
Construct a format that enables a structured comparison.
Step 6
Use both quantitative and qualitative data for measurement
Step 7
Involve stakeholders to obtain consensus about the indicators, to provide information on data availability and reliability, and to assist in data collection.
Step 5,6,7,8,9
Keep indicators simple so that time can be spent on the analysis of the underlying processes
Step 7,8,9,10
For those indicators showing a large annual variation in outcomes, measurement over a number of years should be considered.
Step 7,9,10
Adapt identified working methods, so that they comply with other practices in organization.
Step 11

20. BenchCan Brussels 14-05-2013 Prof. W.H. van Harten MD. Ph.D.
Thanks to:
Jonathan Watson, Claudio Lombardo, Joseph Lovey, Maarten IJzerman, Mahasti Saghatchian, and many others..