The surgical management of cervical carcinoma within the south west of England: Progress through an audit loop

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 107, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 308-315

  Murdoch, J B ^a   Weeks, J F ^a   Howe, K ^a   Smith, J ^a   Kirkpatrick, A ^a   McCrum, A ^a  

^a Regional Cancer Organisation   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL TRIAL; DATA BASE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; LYMPH NODE DISSECTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL AUDIT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADICAL HYSTERECTOMY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR VOLUME; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; WORKLOAD;

ENGLAND; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTERECTOMY; MEDICAL AUDIT; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 0034098215     PISSN: 14700328     EISSN: 14710528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb13223.x     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Monaghan JM, Ireland D, Mor-Yosef S, Pearson SE, Lopes A, Sinha DP. Role of centralisation of surgery in stage I B carcinoma of the cervix: a review of 498 cases. Role of centralisation of surgery in stage I B carcinoma of the cervix: a review of 498 cases 1990; 37: 206–209.
2. Department of Health. A policy framework for commissioning cancer services. A report by the expert advisory group on cancer to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales. 1995. London: Department of Health 3733 4 P Ik, Jan 1996.
3. Department of Health. A First Class Service. Quality in the New NHS. London: Department of Health, June 1998.
4. Luft HS, Garnick DW, Mark DH, McPhee SJ. Hospital volume, physician volume and patient outcomes. Assessing the evidence. Michigan: Health Administration Press Perspectives, 1990.
5. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists/The British Gynaecological Cancer Society. A Joint Working Group response to ‘A policy framework for commissioning cancer services’. London: RCOG, 1996.
6. Relationship between volume and quality of health care: a review of the literature. The University of York, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. CRD Report 2, 1995.
7. Jackson S, Murdoch J, Howe K, Bedford C, Saunders T, Prentice A. The management of cervical carcinoma within the South West region of England. The management of cervical carcinoma within the South West region of England 1997; 104: 140–144.
8. Weeks J, Howe K, Murdoch J. Regional Gynaecological Cancer Audit—The South West of England experience [poster]. Leeds: British Gynaecological Cancer Society, 1998.
9. Girardi F, Haas J. The importance of the histological processing of pelvic lymph nodes in the treatment of cervical cancer. The importance of the histological processing of pelvic lymph nodes in the treatment of cervical cancer 1993; 3: 12–17.
10. Kjorstad KE, Kolbenstvedt A, Strickert T. The value of complete lymphadenectomy in radical treatment of cancer of the cervix, Stage Ib. The value of complete lymphadenectomy in radical treatment of cancer of the cervix, Stage Ib 1984; 54: 2215–2219.
11. Hale RJ, Buckley CH, Fox H, Wilcox FL, Tindall VR, Logue JP. The morphology and distribution of lymph node metastases in Stage Ib/II a cervical carcinoma: relationship to prognosis. The morphology and distribution of lymph node metastases in Stage Ib/II a cervical carcinoma: relationship to prognosis 1991; 1: 233–237.