[Assessment of staffing and infrastructures of paediatric oncology and haematology centres in Germany].
METHODS
At the end of 2003, the Competence Network Paediatric Oncology and Haematology conducted a survey of paediatric oncology centres in Germany as one of its measures to support and advance the collaboration of paediatric oncology centres and trials in science and health care. There was a lack of key figures to describe their combined position in the health care system. The survey aimed to quantify existing structures in terms of personnel, facilities, and patients as well as to collect preliminary information on patterns of care and on quality assurance. Starting with the largest patient numbers, 53 German centres were included, which cared for at least 10 patients under the age of 15 years with a newly diagnosed malignant disease per year.


RESULTS
49 (92%) centres contributed to the survey. 40 centres cared for a total of 1712 patients under the age of 15 years with a first occurrence of a malignant disease, which corresponds to 83% of all such patients registered in the German Childhood Cancer Registry in 2003. The total number of patients cared for in these centers, which also includes those with a relapse and the above 15-year olds, exceeds the Registry numbers by about 50%. The survey's outcome on staffing revealed about two work positions per bed (in-patient or day-clinic). A significant part of this personnel is financed by third-party funds. On average, the centres responding to the survey were equipped with 7 physician, 21 nursing and 4,4 psychologist, social worker, medical documentarist, and secretariat posts to care for a mean of 54 patients or 18 in-patient beds. Including those working positions financed by third-party funds, the majority of centres scored staffing as good or excellent. Yet, one out of ten centres scored the staffing of one or more occupational groups as poor.


CONCLUSIONS
The survey provided for the first time a national assessment of the variable levels of staffing and facilities in the most relevant German paediatric oncology centres. The data indicate that the relationship between several key figures such as the Registry patient subset's numbers and in-patient bed numbers, for example, is weak, whereas physician post numbers, for example, correlate reasonably well with actual patient numbers. Further data include the variety of special health care offered and preliminary provisions for quality assurance per centre. According to a comparison with a seminal publication on needs in German paediatric oncology health care published in 1991 and with a needs survey of the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), there seems to be an insufficient response to the needs, which is undermined by the centres survey responses. In view of the DRG reimbursement system being introduced throughout German health care, future surveys should also focus on key figures related to the DRG system such as case numbers, but such data should be merged with patient data in order to maintain a perspective on the course of health care provision to children and young adults with cancer.
Kompetenznetz Pädiatrische Onkologie und Hämatologie, Berlin. ralf.herold@gmx.net
R
R
Herold
R
R
Reiche
U
U
Creutzig
G
G
Henze
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000367:Age Factors; D002173:Cancer Care Facilities / Q000458:organization & administration*; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D003953:Diagnosis-Related Groups / Q000191:economics; D005858:Germany; D006306:Health Surveys; D006405:Hematology / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D008495:Medical Oncology / Q000592:standards*; D010372:Pediatrics / Q000592:standards*; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D012042:Registries; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D000078329:Workforce