Search

Modern communication and information technologies are rapidly being deployed at health care institutions around the world. Although these technologies offer many benefits, ensuring data protection is a major concern, and implementation of robust data protection measures is essential. In this context, health care providers and medical care facilities must frequently make difficult decisions and compromises between the need to provide effective medical care and the need to ensure data security and patient privacy. In the present paper, we describe and discuss key issues related to data protection systems in the setting of cancer care hospitals in Europe. We provide real-life examples from two European countries—Poland and the Czech Republic—to illustrate data protection issues and the steps being taking to address these questions. More specifically, we discuss the legal framework surrounding data protection and technical aspects related to patient authentication and communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. We performed a clinical audit of preoperative rectal cancer treatment at two European radiotherapy centres (Poland and Spain). The aim was to independently verify adherence to a selection of indicators of treatment quality and to identify any notable inter-institutional differences. Methods. A total of 162 patients, in Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO) 68 and in Greater Poland Cancer Centre (GPCC) 94, diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer and treated with preoperative radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy were included in retrospective study. A total of 7 quality control measures were evaluated: waiting time, multidisciplinary treatment approach, portal verification, in vivo dosimetry, informed consent, guidelines for diagnostics and therapy, and patient monitoring during treatment. Results. Several differences were observed. Waiting time from pathomorphological diagnosis to initial consultation was 31 (ICO) vs. 8 (GPCC) days. Waiting time from the first visit to the beginning of the treatment was twice as long at the ICO. At the ICO, 82% of patient experienced treatment interruptions. The protocol for portal verification was the same at both institutions. In vivo dosimetry is not used for this treatment localization at the ICO. The ICO utilizes locally-developed guidelines for diagnostics and therapy, while the GPCC is currently developing its own guidelines. Conclusions. An independent external clinical audit is an excellent approach to identifying and resolving deficiencies in quality control procedures. We identified several procedures amenable to improvement. Both institutions have since implemented changes to improve quality standards. We believe that all radiotherapy centres should perform a comprehensive clinical audit to identify and rectify deficiencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Cancer incidence and its mortality depend on a number of factors, including age, socio-economic status and geographic situation, and its incidence is growing around the world [1]. Cancer incidence in Europe is now about 4000 patients per million per year and due to the ageing population a yearly increase of 1–1.5% in cancer cases is estimated in the next two decades [2–4]. Most of the cancer treatments will include external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy. Brachytherapy has increased its use as a radical or palliative treatment and become more sophisticated with the spread of pulsed dose rate and high dose rate afterloading machines, and the use of new planning systems has additionally improved quality of treatment [5–14] Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare two countries (Poland and Spain) and to report the differences in the use of brachytherapy in these countries. For this reason, several characteristics related to brachytherapy were compared. Materials/Methods: The data used were collected using a website questionnaire for the year 2002 where every centre that participated in the survey could introduce, change or update the information requested. Hospitals included in the study were those that provided data on brachytherapy, because our objective was to compare the brachytherapy facilities between Poland and Spain. Results: Data were available for 22 centres in Poland and 39 centres in Spain that provided brachytherapy in 2002. Spain having more centres that applied brachytherapy (1.0 centre per 1,000,000 inhabitants in Spain vs. 0.6 centre per 1,000,000 inhabitants in Poland), the average number of brachytherapy patients per centre is lower in Spain than in Poland, 137 and 382 respectively. The 5 main tumour sites treated with brachytherapy in Poland were: gynaecological (73.7%), bronchus (13.0%), breast (2.8%), prostate (2.4%) and head and neck (1.6%). In Spain they were: gynaecological (59.7%), breast (15.4%), prostate (12.8%), head and neck (4.2%) and bronchus (1.5%). Statistically significant differences were found in the number of gynaecological, bronchial and breast brachytherapy patients between the countries. Conclusions: Although both countries belong to the European Union, there were observed several differences in the use of brachytherapy. We also found some differences in the brachytherapy techniques used in prostate and head and neck cancers. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]