Breast cancer, breast cancer-directed radiation therapy and risk of hypothyroidism: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Breast cancer and breast cancer-directed radiation therapy (RT) may increase the risk of late effects, such as hypothyroidism. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the association between breast cancer, RT, and risk of hypothyroidism in breast cancer survivors.

METHODS

Through February 2022, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, and references of relevant articles, to identify papers on breast cancer and breast cancer-directed RT and subsequent risk of hypothyroidism. Articles were screened by title and abstract and reviewed for eligibility. We used a pre-formed data extraction sheet and identified key design elements that could potentially introduce bias. The main outcome was the confounder-adjusted relative risk (RR) of hypothyroidism in breast cancer survivors versus women without breast cancer, and in breast cancer survivors according to the receipt of RT to the supraclavicular lymph nodes. We used a random-effects model to calculate pooled RRs and associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

From 951 papers screened by title and abstract, 34 full-text papers were reviewed for eligibility. We included 20 studies published between 1985 and 2021-19 were cohort studies. Compared with women without breast cancer, the pooled RR of hypothyroidism in breast cancer survivors was 1.48 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.87), with highest risk associated with RT to the supraclavicular region (RR = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.46). The most important limitations of the studies were small sample size yielding estimates with low precision, and lack of data on potential confounders.

CONCLUSION

Breast cancer and radiation therapy to the supraclavicular lymph nodes is associated with an increased risk of hypothyroidism.

Accreditation and Clinical Outcomes: Shorter Length of Stay After First-Time Hospital Accreditation in the Faroe Islands

BACKGROUND

The aim of accreditation is to improve quality of care and patient safety. However, studies on the effectiveness of accreditation on clinical outcomes are limited and inconsistent. Comparative studies have contrasted accredited with non-accredited hospitals or hospitals without a benchmark, but assessments of clinical outcomes of patients treated at hospitals undergoing accreditation are sparse. The Faroe Islands hospitals were accredited for the first time in 2017, making them an ideal place to study the impact of accreditation. The objective was to investigate the association between first-time hospital accreditation and length of stay (LOS), acute readmission (AR) and 30-day mortality in the unique setting of the Faroe Islands.

METHODS

A before and after study based on medical record audits in relation to first-time accreditation. All three Faroese hospitals were voluntarily accredited using a modified second version of the Danish Healthcare Quality Program (DDKM) encompassing 76 standards. We included in-patients 18 years or older treated at a Faroese hospital with one of six clinical conditions (stroke/TIA, bleeding gastric ulcer, COPD, childbirth, heart failure and hip fracture) in 2012-2013 designated 'before accreditation' or 2017-2018 'after accreditation'. Main outcome measures were LOS, all-cause AR and all-cause 30-day mortality. We computed adjusted cause specific hazard rate ratios (HR) using Cox Proportional Hazard regression with before accreditation as reference. The analyses were controlled for age, sex, cohabitant status, in-hospital rehabilitation, type of admission, diagnosis and cluster effect at patient and hospital level.

RESULTS

The mean LOS was 13.4 days (95%CI: 10.8, 15.9) before accreditation and 7.5 days (95%CI: 6.10, 8.89) after accreditation. LOS of patients hospitalized after accreditation was significantly shorter (overall, adjusted HR=1.23 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04, 1.46)). By medical condition, only women in childbirth had a significantly shorter LOS (adjusted HR=1.30 (95%CI: 1.04, 1.62)). In total, 12.3% of in-patients before and 9.5% after accreditation were readmitted acutely within 30 days of discharge, and 30-day mortality was 3.3% among in-patients before and 2.8% after accreditation, respectively. No associations were found overall or by medical condition for AR (overall, adjusted HR=1.34 (95%CI: 0.82, 2.18)) or 30-day mortality (overall, adjusted HR=1.33 (95%CI: 0.55, 3.21)) after adjustment for potential confounding factors.

CONCLUSION

First-time hospital accreditation in the Faroe Islands was associated with significant reduction in LOS, especially of women in childbirth. Notably,shorter LOS was not followed by increased AR. There was no evidence that first-time accreditation lowered the risk of AR or 30-day mortality.

Patient-related healthcare disparities in the quality of acute hip fracture care: a 10-year nationwide population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To characterise and quantify possible patient-related disparities in hip fracture care including temporal changes.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

SETTING

All Danish hospitals treating patients with hip fracture.

PARTICIPANTS

60 275 hip fracture patients from 2007 to 2016.

INTERVENTIONS

Quality of care was defined as fulfilment of eligible care process measures for the individual patient recommended by an expert panel. Using yearly logistic regression models, we predicted the individual patient's probability for receiving high-quality care, resulting in a distribution of adjusted probabilities based on age, sex, comorbidity, fracture type, education, family mean income, migration status, cohabitation status, employment status, nursing home residence and type of municipality. Based on the distribution, we identified best-off patients (ie, the 10% of patients with the highest probability) and worst-off patients (ie, the 10% of patients with the lowest probability). We evaluated disparities in quality of care by measuring the distance in fulfilment of outcomes between the best-off and worst-off patients.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was fulfilment of all-or-none, defined as receiving all relevant process measures. Secondary outcomes were fulfilment of the individual process measures including preoperative optimisation, early surgery, early mobilisation, assessment of pain, basic mobility, nutritional risk and need for antiosteoporotic medication, fall prevention and a postdischarge rehabilitation programme.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients receiving high-quality care varied over time for both best-off and worst-off patients. The absolute difference in percentage points between the best-off and worst-off patients for receiving all-or-none of the eligible process measures was 12 (95% CI 6 to 18) in 2007 and 23 (95% CI 19 to 28) in 2016. Disparities were consistent for a range of care processes, including assessment of pain, mobilisation within 24 hours, assessment of need for antiosteoporotic medication and nutritional risk assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Disparity of care between best-off and worst-off patients remained substantial over time.

Patients experience more support, information and involvement after first-time hospital accreditation: a before and after study in the Faroe Islands

BACKGROUND

The impact of hospital accreditation on the experiences of patients remains a weak point in quality improvement research. This is surprising given the time and cost of accreditation and the fact that patient experiences influence outcomes. We investigated the impact of first-time hospital accreditation on patients' experience of support from health-care professionals, information and involvement in decisions.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to examine the association between first-time hospital accreditation and patient experiences.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal study in the three Faroese hospitals that, unlike hospitals on the Danish mainland and elsewhere internationally, had no prior exposure to systematic quality improvement. The hospitals were accredited in 2017 according to a modified second version of the Danish Healthcare Quality program. Study participants were 18 years or older and hospitalized for at least 24 h in 2016 before or 2018 after accreditation. We administered the National Danish Survey of Patient Experiences for acute and scheduled hospitalization. Patients rated their experiences of support, information and involvement in decision-making on a 5-point Likert scale. We calculated individual and grouped mean item scores, the percentages of scores ≥4, the mean score difference, the relative risk (RR) for high/very high scores (≥4) using Poisson regression and the risk difference. Patient experience ratings were compared using mixed effects linear regression.

RESULTS

In total, 400 patients before and 400 after accreditation completed the survey. After accreditation patients reported increased support from health professionals; adjusted mean score difference (adj. mean diff.) = 1.99 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.89, 2.10), feeling better informed before and during the hospitalization; adj. mean diff. = 1.14 (95% CI: 1.07; 1.20) and more involved in decision-making; adj. mean diff. = 1.79 (95% CI: 1.76; 1.82). Additionally, the RR for a high/very high score (≥4) was significantly greater on 15 of the 16 questionnaire items. The greatest RR for a high/very high score (≥4) after accreditation, was found for the item 'Have you had a dialogue with the staff about the advantages and disadvantages of the examination/treatment options available?'; RR= 5.73 (95% CI: 4.51, 7.27).

CONCLUSION

Hospitalized patients experienced significantly more support from health professionals, information and involvement in decision-making after accreditation. Future research on accreditation should include the patients' perspective.

The association between first-time accreditation and the delivery of recommended care: a before and after study in the Faroe Islands

Background

Significant resources are spent on hospital accreditation worldwide. However, documentation of the effects of accreditation on processes, quality of care and outcomes in healthcare remain scarce. This study aimed to examine changes in the delivery of patient care in accordance with clinical guidelines (recommended care) after first-time accreditation in a care setting not previously exposed to systematic quality improvement initiatives.

Methods

We conducted a before and after study based on medical record reviews in connection with introducing first-time accreditation. We included patients with stroke/transient ischemic attack, bleeding gastric ulcer, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), childbirth, heart failure and hip fracture treated at public, non-psychiatric Faroese hospitals during 2012–2013 (before accreditation) or 2017–2018 (after accreditation). The intervention was the implementation of a modified second version of The Danish Healthcare Quality Program (DDKM) from 2014 to 2016 including an on-site accreditation survey in the Faroese hospitals. Recommended care was assessed using 63 disease specific patient level process performance measures in seven clinical conditions. We calculated the fulfillment and changes in the opportunity-based composite score and the all-or-none score.

Results

We included 867 patient pathways (536 before and 331 after). After accreditation, the total opportunity-based composite score was marginally higher though the change did not reach statistical significance (adjusted percentage point difference (%): 4.4%; 95% CI: − 0.7 to 9.6). At disease level, patients with stroke/transient ischemic attack, bleeding gastric ulcer, COPD and childbirth received a higher proportion of recommended care after accreditation. No difference was found for heart failure and diabetes. Hip fracture received less recommended care after accreditation. The total all-or-none score, which is the probability of a patient receiving all recommended care, was significantly higher after accreditation (adjusted relative risk (RR): 2.32; 95% CI: 2.03 to 2.67). The improvement was particularly strong for patients with COPD (RR: 16.22; 95% CI: 14.54 to 18.10).

Conclusion

Hospitals were in general more likely to provide recommended care after first-time accreditation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06952-w.

Effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulation treatment beyond 1 year after venous thromboembolism in patients at intermediate recurrence risk

Effectiveness and safety of long-term anticoagulation treatment are uncertain in venous thromboembolism (VTE) patients at intermediate risk of recurrence. We examined the association between treatment beyond 1 year and outcomes in a Danish nationwide register-based study. VTE patients at intermediate risk of recurrence, that is, non-cancer patients with a first-time unprovoked VTE, who started oral anticoagulation treatment within 30 days and were alive 365 days after the index VTE were included and followed between 2007 and 2015. Exposure was extended (>365 days) or intermediate (91-365 days) treatment. Analyses were done using Cox regression on a propensity score weighted population. We included 18 609 patients with 7232 (38.9%) receiving extended treatment. Mean duration of follow-up was 2.6 years. Compared with intermediate treatment, treatment beyond 365 days was associated with a lower weighted risk of recurrent VTE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.65) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.90) and an increased risk of major bleeding (HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.58-2.22). In conclusion, extended anticoagulation treatment (predominantly warfarin) beyond 1 year was in real-life settings associated with a lower risk of recurrent VTE and all-cause mortality among VTE patients with an intermediate risk of recurrence. However, an increased bleeding risk should be considered.

Consecutive cycles of accreditation and quality of in-hospital care: a Danish population-based study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about whether repeated cycles of hospital accreditation are a robust method to improve quality of care continuously.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to examine the association between compliance with consecutive cycles of accreditation and quality of in-hospital care.

METHODS

We conducted a Danish nationwide population-based study including patients aged 18 years treated for acute stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart failure or hip fracture at public, non-psychiatric hospitals. From 2012 to 2015, two cycles of national hospital accreditation were completed, resulting in 12 high and 14 low compliant hospitals (Low = partially accredited in both cycles). Our outcome measure was quality of in-hospital care measured by 39 process performance measures (PPMs), reflecting recommendations from the national clinical guidelines by adherence to (i) individual PPMs and (ii) the full bundle of PPMs (all-or-none). We computed adjusted odds ratios (ORs) using logistic regression based on robust standard error estimation for cluster sampling of data at hospital level.

RESULTS

In total, 78 387 patient pathways covering 508 816 processes were included, of which 47% had been delivered at high compliant hospitals and 53% at low compliant hospitals, respectively. Compliance with consecutive cycles was not associated with improved quality of in-hospital care (individual: OR = 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77-1.10; All-or-none: OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.66-1.15). However, in the second cycle alone, patients treated at partially accredited hospitals had a lower adherence than patients treated at fully accredited hospitals (Individual: OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.71-0.99; All-or-none: OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.59-1.03). The association was particularly strong among patients treated at partially accredited hospitals required to submit additional documentation.

CONCLUSION

Compliance with consecutive cycles of hospital accreditation in Denmark was not associated with improved quality of in-hospital care. However, compliance with the second cycle alone was associated with improved quality of in-hospital care.

Incidence of hypothyroidism after treatment for breast cancer-a Danish matched cohort study

Background

Breast cancer survivors (BCS) may have increased risk of hypothyroidism, but risk according to treatment modality is unclear. We estimated the incidence of hypothyroidism in women with breast cancer, and according to cancer treatment.

Methods

Using nationwide registries, we identified all Danish women aged ≥ 35 years diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer (1996–2009). We matched up to five cancer-free women (controls) for each BCS. We excluded women with prevalent thyroid disease. Cancer treatment was chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy (RT) targeting the breast/chest wall only, or also the lymph nodes (RTn). We identified hypothyroidism using diagnostic codes, and/or levothyroxine prescriptions. We calculated the cumulative incidence, incidence rates (IR) per 1000 person-years, and used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of hypothyroidism, adjusting for comorbidities.

Results

We included 44,574 BCS and 203,306 matched controls with 2,631,488 person-years of follow-up. BCS had a slightly higher incidence of hypothyroidism than controls [5-year cumulative incidence, 1.8% (95%CI = 1.7–1.9) and 1.6% (95%CI = 1.5–1.6), respectively]. The overall IR was 4.45 (95%CI = 4.25–4.67) and 3.81 (95%CI = 3.73–3.90), corresponding to an adjusted HR = 1.17 (95%CI = 1.11–1.24). BCS who received RTn with chemotherapy (HR = 1.74, 95%CI = 1.50–2.02) or without chemotherapy (HR = 1.31, 95%CI = 1.14–1.51) had an elevated risk of hypothyroidism compared with matched controls and compared with BCS who underwent surgery alone [HR = 1.71, 95%CI = 1.45–2.01 and HR = 1.36, 95%CI = 1.17–1.58, respectively].

Conclusions

BCS have an excess risk of hypothyroidism compared with age-matched controls. BCS and those working in cancer survivorship settings ought to be aware that this risk is highest in women treated with radiation therapy to the lymph nodes and chemotherapy.

Hypothyroidism and the risk of breast cancer recurrence and all-cause mortality - a Danish population-based study

Background

Hypothyroidism may occur as a late effect of breast cancer-directed treatment, particularly after radiotherapy, but little is known whether hypothyroidism affects the prognosis after breast cancer. We investigated the association between hypothyroidism and breast cancer recurrence, and all-cause mortality.

Methods

In this population-based cohort study, we used national medical registries to identify all Danish women 35 years or older diagnosed with stage I–III, operable breast cancer between 1996 and 2009. Hypothyroidism was defined as hospital diagnoses ascertained via diagnostic codes, or as prescriptions for levothyroxine. Two analytic models were used: (i) hypothyroidism present at the time of the breast cancer diagnosis (prevalent) and (ii) hypothyroidism diagnosed during follow-up as a time-varying exposure lagged by 1 year (incident). Breast cancer recurrence was defined as any local, regional, or distant recurrence or contralateral breast cancer. All-cause mortality included death from any cause in any setting. We used Cox regression models accounting for competing risks to compute adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of breast cancer recurrence and all-cause mortality.

Results

The study cohort included 35,463 women with breast cancer with 212,641 person-years of follow-up. At diagnosis, 1272 women had hypothyroidism and 859 women developed hypothyroidism during follow-up. In total, 5810 patients developed recurrent breast cancer. Neither prevalent nor incident hypothyroidism was associated with breast cancer recurrence (adjusted HR_prevalent 1.01, 95% CI 0.87–1.19; adjusted HR_incident 0.93, 95% CI 0.75–1.16, respectively). Furthermore, no differences were seen for all-cause mortality for prevalent or incident hypothyroidism (adjusted HR_prevalent 1.02, 95% CI 0.92–1.14, and HR_incident 1.08, 95% CI 0.95–1.23, respectively). Stratification by menopausal status, oestrogen receptor status, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy did not alter the estimates.

Conclusions

Hypothyroidism present at diagnosis or during follow-up was not associated with breast cancer recurrence or all-cause mortality in women with breast cancer. Our findings provide reassurance to patients and their physicians that hypothyroidism is unlikely to impact on the clinical course of breast cancer or survival.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13058-019-1122-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Consecutive cycles of hospital accreditation: Persistent low compliance associated with higher mortality and longer length of stay

Objective

To examine the association between compliance with consecutive cycles of accreditation and patient-related outcomes.

Design

A Danish nationwide population-based study from 2012 to 2015.

Setting

In-patients admitted with one of the 80 diagnoses at public, non-psychiatric hospitals.

Participants

In-patients admitted with one of 80 primary diagnoses which accounted for 80% of all deaths occuring within 30 dyas after admission.

Intervention

Admission to a hospital with high (n = 125 485 in-patients) or low compliance (n = 152 074 in-patients) in both cycles of accreditation by the Danish Healthcare Quality Programme.

Main outcome measures

A 30-day mortality, length of stay (LOS) and all-cause acute readmission. We computed adjusted odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) using logistic and Cox Proportional Hazard regression including adjustment for six potential patient-related confounders.

Results

The 30-day mortality risk for in-patients admitted at high compliant hospitals was 3.95% (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.84-4.06) and 4.39% (95% CI: 4.29-4.49) at low compliant hospitals. In-patients admitted at low compliant hospitals had a substantially higher risk of dying within 30-day after admission (adjusted OR: 1.26 (95% CI: 1.11-1.43) and a longer LOS (adjusted HR of discharge: 0.89 (95% CI: 0.82-0.95) than in-patients at high compliant hospitals. No difference was seen for acute readmission (adjusted HR: 0.98 (95% CI: 0.90-1.06)). Focusing on the second cycle alone, in-patients at partially accredited hospitals had a higher 30-day mortality risk and longer LOS than admissions at fully accredited hospitals (30-day: adjusted OR: 1.12 (95% CI: 1.02-1.24) and LOS: adjusted HR: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84-0.98)).

Conclusion

Persistent low compliance with the DDKM (in Danish: Den Danske Kvalitetsmodel) accreditation was associated with higher 30-day mortality and longer LOS.

Predictors of the effectiveness of accreditation on hospital performance: A nationwide stepped-wedge study

Objective

To identify predictors of the effectiveness of hospital accreditation on process performance measures.

Design

A multi-level, longitudinal, stepped-wedge, nationwide study.

Participants

All patients admitted for acute stroke, heart failure, ulcers, diabetes, breast cancer and lung cancer at Danish hospitals.

Intervention

The Danish Healthcare Quality Programme that was designed to create a framework for continuous quality improvement.

Main outcome Measure(s)

Changes in week-by-week trends of hospitals' process performance measures during the study period of 269 weeks prior to, during and post-accreditations. Process performance measures were based on 43 different processes of care obtained from national clinical quality registries. Analyses were stratified according to condition, type of care (i.e. treatment, diagnostics, secondary prevention and patient monitoring) and hospital characteristics (i.e. university affiliation, location, size, experience with accreditation and accreditation compliance).

Results

A total of 1 624 518 processes of care were included. The impact of accreditation differed across the conditions. During accreditation, heart failure and breast cancer showed less improvement than other disease areas. Across all conditions, diagnostic processes improved less rapidly than other types of processes. However, after stratifying the data by hospital characteristics, process performance measures improved more uniformly. In respect of the measures that had an unsatisfactory level of quality, the processes related to diabetes, diagnostics and patient monitoring all responded to accreditation and showed an increased improvement during the preparatory work.

Conclusion

Hospital characteristics were not found to be predictors for the effects of accreditation, whereas conditions and types of care to some extent predicted the effectiveness.

Accreditation and improvement in process quality of care: a nationwide study

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether performance measures improve more in accredited hospitals than in non-accredited hospital.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A historical follow-up study was performed using process of care data from all public Danish hospitals in order to examine the development over time in performance measures according to participation in accreditation programs.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients admitted for acute stroke, heart failure or ulcer at Danish hospitals.

INTERVENTION

Hospital accreditation by either The Joint Commission International or The Health Quality Service.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was a change in opportunity-based composite score and the secondary outcome was a change in all-or-none scores, both measures were based on the individual processes of care. These processes included seven processes related to stroke, six processes to heart failure, four to bleeding ulcer and four to perforated ulcer.

RESULTS

A total of 27 273 patients were included. The overall opportunity-based composite score improved for both non-accredited and accredited hospitals (13.7% [95% CI 10.6; 16.8] and 9.9% [95% 5.4; 14.4], respectively), but the improvements were significantly higher for non-accredited hospitals (absolute difference: 3.8% [95% 0.8; 8.3]). No significant differences were found at disease level. The overall all-or-none score increased significantly for non-accredited hospitals, but not for accredited hospitals. The absolute difference between improvements in the all-or-none score at non-accredited and accredited hospitals was not significant (3.2% [95% -3.6:9.9]).

CONCLUSIONS

Participating in accreditation was not associated with larger improvement in performance measures for acute stroke, heart failure or ulcer.