• 45%
    of breast cancer patients went to emergency or hospital after adjuvant chemo in 2011
  • 42%
    of colon cancer patients went to emergency or hospital after adjuvant chemo in 2011
  • 80%
    of chemo visits were supported by Computerized Prescriber Order Entry in 2011
  • 32,000 patients
    were discussed at Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences in 2012
  • 1.1 million
    Ontario women aged 50–74 were screened for breast cancer in 2010–2011
  • 81%
    of cancer surgeries were completed within the target wait time in 2012
  • In 2012
    72% of patients accessing Diagnostic Assessment Programs got help with anxiety/fear while having hospital tests
  • 98%
    of outpatients expressed a high degree of satisfaction with their care in 2012
  • 2.6 million
    people were up-to-date with recommended cancer screening tests in 2011
  • 43%
    of cancer patients visit emergency in the last 2 weeks of life
Click here to emailClick here to printClick here to share

Hamilton Niagara LHIN

 
Hamilton Niagara LHIN map






The Juravinski Cancer Centre (Hamilton) is implementing a LHIN-wide oncology information system and retrospective data from June 2012 is impacted. Get more information.
Quick Statistics: 2013 (projected) data
Total Population
Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant:1,442,160
Ontario:13,690,088
Percentage of population over 50
Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant:38%
Ontario:35%
Projected new cancer cases
Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant:8,315
Ontario:69,949
Projected number of deaths
Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant:3,599
Ontario:28,316

LEGEND
Good
Fair
Incomplete Data
Better than Ontario Average
Worse than Ontario Average
Substantially same as Ontario Average
Green
Performance is better compared to the previously reported data.
Amber
There is no substantial change compared to the previously reported data. Also includes data where performance is worse compared to previously reported data however still meets target.
Red
Performance is worse compared to the previously reported data.
Grey
No data for previous year (ie no time trend information).

Using the most recent data year, the circles represent how the LHIN is performing compared to the Ontario average.

Please click here for an explanation of how we determined the "At a Glance" information

Calculating At a Glance

In determining whether an indicator was the same or different from the Ontario Average or whether an indicator was the same or different from the Comparison Data, we took the following approach:

Values were considered essentially "the same" if:

  1. There was no statistically significant difference between them; OR
  2. Where there was no significance information calculated, then if there were overlapping confidence intervals; OR
  3. Where there were no confidence intervals calculated, then if the percent values were less than or equal to 2 percentage points of each other. For absolute values, we calculated the percentage difference between the values. Less than or equal to a 2% change or difference was considered the same.
CONTEXT At a Glance Comparison Data Most Recent Data     
Cancer Incidence Rates   Estimated 2013 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Estimated incidence age-standardized rates for female breast cancer Same as Ont AverageNA 102.9 101.3 93.5 108.4 None 
Estimated incidence age-standardized rates for prostate cancer  Worse than Ont AverageNA 149.3 133.8 111.5 155.5 None 
Estimated incidence age-standardized rates for colon and rectum cancer Same as Ont AverageNA 48.9 47.7 39.7 55.0 None 
Estimated incidence age-standardized rates for lung and bronchus cancer  Worse than Ont AverageNA 50.3 46.1 35.2 55.3 None 
Cancer Survival  1995-1999 2005-2009 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Age standardized 5-year relative survival for female breast cancer Worse than Ont Average - No Substantial Change83.0% 84.4% 87.2% 84.4% 90.9% None 
Age standardized 5-year relative survival for prostate cancer Same as Ont Average - Performance is Better87.7% 97.2% 97.2% 90.5% 100.5% None 
Age standardized 5-year relative survival for colon and rectum cancer Same as Ont Average - Performance is Better53.9% 64.4% 65.7% 61.2% 70.4% None 
Age standardized 5-year relative survival for lung cancer Worse than Ont Average - No Substantial Change15.9% 16.3% 18.8% 15.7% 23.6% None 
 
PREVENTION At a Glance Comparison Data Most Recent Data     
Alcohol Consumption   Estimated 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of Ontarians aged 19+ exceeding the cancer prevention maximum for alcoholic drinks Worse than Ont AverageNA 13.9% 9.0% 5.3% 13.9% None 
Vegetable and Fruit Consumption   Estimated 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of Ontarians aged 20+ eating vegetables (excluding potatoes) and fruit less than 5 times daily Better than Ont AverageNA 63.1% 66.8% 63.1% 70.0% None 
Physical Inactivity   Estimated 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of Ontarians aged 18+ physically inactive during leisure time Same as Ont AverageNA 44.6% 48.2% 36.5% 58.2% None 
Sedentary Activity   Estimated 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of Ontarians aged 20+ who participate in sedentary activities Same as Ont AverageNA 50.7% 47.1% 40.1% 50.7% None 
Obesity    Estimated 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of Ontarians aged 18+ self-reporting obesity Worse than Ont AverageNA 22.4% 18.4% 11.9% 26.1% None 
Current Smoking    Estimated 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of Ontarians aged 20+ who are current smokers Same as Ont AverageNA 22.1% 20.6% 16.7% 28.4% None 
Teen Smoking Abstinence   Estimated 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of Ontario teens aged 12-19 who have never smoked a cigarette Same as Ont AverageNA 87.7% 86.2% 74.8% 90.4% None 
 
SCREENING At a Glance Comparison Data Most Recent Data     
Breast Cancer Screening: Follow-up of abnormal results  2010 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of Ontario screen-eligible women with an abnormal OBSP screening mammogram result, 50–74 years old, who underwent their initial assessment procedure within three weeks of the abnormal screen date Same as Ont Average - Performance is Worse78.7% 71.0% 72.6% 37.8% 88.4% ≥ 90% 
Percentage of Ontario screen-eligible women with an abnormal OBSP result, 50–74 years old, who did not need a tissue biopsy and were diagnosed within five weeks of the abnormal screen date Same as Ont Average - Performance is Worse89.7% 85.4% 84.6% 57.2% 94.3% ≥ 90% 
Percentage of Ontario screen-eligible women with an abnormal OBSP result, 50–74 years old, who needed a tissue biopsy and were diagnosed within seven weeks of the abnormal screen date Better than Ont Average - Performance is Worse77.9% 75.1% 64.1% 43.3% 80.0% ≥ 90% 
Cervical Cancer Screening: Follow-Up of abnormal results  2010 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of Ontario screen-eligible women with a high-grade cervical dysplasia on a Pap test, 20–69 years old, who underwent colposcopy or definitive treatment within six months of the high-grade abnormal screen date Better than Ont Average - No Substantial Change84.1% 84.4% 80.9% 68.3% 86.7% None 
Colorectal Cancer Screening: Follow-up of abnormal results  2010 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of Ontario screen-eligible individuals with an abnormal FOBT result, 50–74 years old, who underwent colonoscopy within six months of the abnormal screen date Better than Ont Average - Performance is Better76.7% 79.9% 74.6% 67.4% 84.0% None 
  2011 2012 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of Ontarians, 50-74 years old, with an abnormal FOBT result and who had a follow-up colonoscopy, who had a colonoscopy within eight weeks of referral Worse than Ont Average - No Substantial Change67.4% 66.9% 72.2% 60.1% 82.5% 75% 
Breast Cancer Screening (Mammogram) Participation   2010-2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Age-adjusted percentage of Ontario women, 50–74 years old, who completed at least one mammogram within a two-year interval, Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) Better than Ont AverageNA 46.5% 43.2% 30.8% 52.9% None 
Age-adjusted percentage of Ontario women, 50–74 years old, who completed at least one mammogram within a two-year interval, Non-Ontario Breast Screening Program (Non-OBSP) Better than Ont AverageNA 13.5% 17.6% 7.2% 25.2% None 
  2008-2009 2010-2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Age-adjusted percentage of Ontario women, 50–74 years old, who completed at least one mammogram within a two-year interval, Overall Screened (% Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP)+ non-OBSP) Same as Ont Average - No Substantial Change60.3% 60.1% 60.8% 55.4% 63.0% ≥ 70% 
Cervical Cancer Screening (Pap test) Participation  2006-2008 2009-2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Age-adjusted percentage of Ontario screen-eligible women, 20–69 years old, who completed at least one Pap test in a three-year period Same as Ont Average - No Substantial Change65.9% 66.6% 64.9% 60.8% 69.3% ≥ 85% 
Colorectal Cancer Screening (FOBT) Participation  2008-2009 2010-2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Age-adjusted percentage of Ontario individuals, 50–74 years old, who completed at least one FOBT in a two-year period Same as Ont Average - No Substantial Change30.9% 31.3% 29.8% 23.2% 35.9% 40% 
Colorectal Cancer Screening (FOBT, Flexsig, Colonscopy)  2010 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Age-adjusted percentage of Ontario screen-eligible individuals, 50–74 years old, who were overdue for colorectal screening in each calendar year Same as Ont Average - Performance is Better50.9% 48.1% 46.8% 43.3% 51.1% None 
Cancer Screening Retention Rates  2008 2009 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of Ontario screen-eligible women, 50–72 years old, who had a subsequent Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) screening mammogram within 30 months of a previous program mammogram Same as Ont Average - No Substantial Change86.8% 85.8% 84.9% 80.8% 90.5% None 
Percentage of Ontario screen-eligible women, 20–66 years old, who had a subsequent Pap test within 36 months of a normal Pap test result Same as Ont Average - No Substantial Change79.8% 78.8% 79.9% 72.9% 82.7% None 
Percentage of Ontario screen-eligible individuals, 50–72 years old, who had a subsequent ColonCancerCheck (CCC) program FOBT within 24 months of a normal program FOBT result Worse than Ont Average - No Substantial Change22.8% 23.8% 27.7% 20.2% 32.2% None 
Percentage of Ontario screen-eligible individuals, 50–72 years old, who had a subsequent ColonCancerCheck (CCC) program FOBT within 30 months of a normal program FOBT result Same as Ont Average - Performance is Better58.8% 61.4% 63.3% 58.3% 67.6% None 
Cancer Screening Integrated Participation  2010 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Age-adjusted percentage of Ontario screen-eligible individuals, 20–74 years old, who were up-to-date with recommended cancer screening tests (mammogram, FOBT and Pap test) Better than Ont Average - No Substantial Change57.7% 57.8% 55.3% 49.9% 59.7% None 
 
DIAGNOSIS At a Glance Comparison Data Most Recent Data     
Synoptic Pathology Reporting Rate  2011 2012 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of surgical pathology resection reports received in synoptic format for all mandated types of cancers Same as Ont Average - No Substantial Change92.3% 93.4% 91.5% 86.0% 94.6% 90% 
Prostate Cancer in Ontario - Diagnosis   2010 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of patients who visited the emergency department and were admitted to hospital or were admitted directly to hospital inpatient unit following prostate biopsy Same as Ont AverageNA 9.2% 9.1% 7.5% 25.2% None 
PET/CT Utilization   2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Number of PET/CT scans per million population Better than Ont AverageNA 641 510 269 752 None 
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) PET/CT scan volumes per NSCLC Incidence Worse than Ont AverageNA 38.6% 41.7% 31.0% 66.3% None 
 
TREATMENT At a Glance Comparison Data Most Recent Data     
Unplanned Visits to Hospital after Adjuvant Chemotherapy   2010 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of Stage I/II/III breast cancer patients receiving New Drug Funding Program (NDFP) drugs who visited the hospital for acute care during a course of treatment, by neutropenia, fever or infection Better than Ont Average - Performance is Better17.1% 10.1% 16.6% 10.1% 24.5% None 
   2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of Stage I/II/III breast cancer patients receiving New Drug Funding Program (NDFP) drugs who visited the hospital for acute care during a course of treatment, total reasons  Better than Ont AverageNA 32.4% 44.6% 32.4% 66.7% None 
Percentage of Stage I/II/III breast cancer patients receiving New Drug Funding Program (NDFP) drugs who visited the hospital for a second time during a course of treatment, by neutropenia, fever or infection  Better than Ont AverageNA 10.1% 24.5% 10.1% 31.8% None 
Percentage of Stage I/II/III breast cancer patients receiving New Drug Funding Program (NDFP) drugs who visited the hospital for a second time during a course of treatment, total reasons Better than Ont AverageNA 35.8% 52.1% 35.8% 66.7% None 
Prostate Cancer in Ontario - Treatment  2008-2009 2010-2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of prostate cancer patients who visited the emergency department within 30 days of prostatectomy Better than Ont Average - Performance is Better23.1% 19.5% 23.4% 19.5% 34.8% None 
Quality of Pathology & Cancer Surgery: Margin Status in Prostate Cancer Surgery and Rectal Cancer Surgery  2011 2012 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of synoptic radical prostatectomy reports with positive Stage II (pT2) margin Same as Ont Average - Performance is Worse17.2% 22.0% 21.7% 15.8% 35.9% 20% 
Percentage of rectal cancer surgery resection reports with involved (positive) circumferential radial margins Same as Ont Average - No Substantial Change7.5% 6.2% 6.8% 3.3% 9.1% 10% 
Team-Oriented Care for the Patient: Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences  October - December 2011 October - December 2012 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Adherence to standards criteria of reported Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences (MCCs) Same as Ont Average - Performance is Better24.7% 55.6% 56.0% 31.9% 82.8% 55% 
Treating Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) According to Guidelines  2008-2009 2010-2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Age-adjusted percentage of resected Stage II or III A non-small cell lung cancer patients (patients diagnosed between January to December 2008 to 2009 and 2010 to 2011) treated with guideline-recommended adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery Same as Ont Average - No Substantial Change49.0% 50.1% 56.7% 42.9% 72.1% None 
  2010 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Age-adjusted percentage of unresected Stage III A or III B non-small cell lung cancer patients (diagnosed in 2009, 2010 and 2011) treated with guideline-recommended chemo-radiation Same as Ont Average - No Substantial Change26.2% 30.7% 31.8% 23.1% 43.5% None 
Treating Stage III Colon Cancer According to Guidelines  2010 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of patients over 65 with Stage III colon cancer who received any guideline-recommended chemotherapy following surgery Better than Ont Average - No Substantial Change58.1% 59.2% 54.9% 40.0% 65.2% None 
Consultation with a Medical Oncologist  2010 2011 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of Stage II breast cancer patients who consult with a medical oncologist within 4 months of surgery Worse than Ont Average - Performance is Better86.1% 89.4% 95.9% 76.3% 99.5% None 
Percentage of Stage III colon cancer patients who consult with a medical oncologist within 4 months of surgery Same as Ont Average - Performance is Better83.8% 88.7% 88.7% 73.7% 100.0% None 
Radiation Treatment Utilization  September 2009-August 2010 September 2011-August 2012 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of cancer patients treated with radiotherapy at any time in the course of illness Same as Ont Average - Performance is Better35.2% 38.1% 38.3% 34.9% 43.4% 48% 
Radiation Equipment Utilization  2011 2012 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Treated cases per megavoltage machine (unadjusted) (3) NA 370 NA 346 276 452 None 
Adjusted cases treated (for complexity) per megavoltage machine (3) NA 373 NA 346 246 414 None 
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Utilization (IMRT Utilization)  2011 2012 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of radical courses of radiation treatment for head and neck cancer delivered using IMRT (1) Worse than Ont Average - Performance is Better85.5% 89.0% 95.3% 75.3% 100.0% 90% 
Percentage of radical courses of radiation treatment for prostate cancer delivered using IMRT (1) Worse than Ont Average - Performance is Better86.5% 90.5% 98.1% 90.5% 100.0% 90% 
Percentage of radical courses of radiation treatment for breast cancer delivered using IMRT (1) Better than Ont Average - No Substantial Change98.7% 98.4% 95.8% 80.0% 100.0% 90% 
Percentage of radical courses of radiation treatment for the central nervous system cancers delivered using IMRT (1) Better than Ont Average - No Substantial Change84.1% 83.0% 76.7% 43.8% 89.3% 75% 
Wait Times for Cancer Surgery  2011 2012 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of cases completed within priority access targets 2, 3 and 4, decision-to-treat to operation, for all cancers Worse than Ont Average - Performance is Better70.3% 76.5% 81.3% 63.6% 95.8% 90% 
Percentage of cases completed within priority access targets 2, 3 and 4, decision-to-treat to operation, for prostate cancer Worse than Ont Average - Performance is Better43.4% 60.3% 74.9% 20.0% 97.1% 90% 
Wait Times for Radiation Treatment  2011 2012 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of patients seen within target (14 days), referral to consult, for all cancers (4) Better than Ont Average - No Substantial Change76.1% 77.7% 73.6% 76.9% 98.6% 80% 
Percentage of patients treated with radiation within target, ready to treat to start of treatment, for all cancers (1) Worse than Ont Average - Performance is Worse84.8% 76.9% 89.2% 49.3% 93.5% 87% 
Percentage of patients seen within target (14 days), referral to consults, for prostate cancer (2) Better than Ont Average - Performance is Better67.2% 78.9% 75.2% 35.7% 94.9% 80% 
Percentage of patients treated with radiation within targets, ready treat to start of treatment, for prostate cancer (1) Worse than Ont Average - Performance is Worse55.0% 53.0% 79.0% 53.0% 97.0% 87% 
Wait Times for Systemic Treatment (Chemotherapy)  2011 2012 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of patients seen within target (14 days), referral to consult Same as Ont Average - Performance is Worse66.7% 63.4% 62.5% 44.8% 85.9% 67% 
Percentage of patients treated within target (28 days), consult to start of treatment Same as Ont Average - No Substantial Change73.3% 73.8% 73.1% 65.9% 80.3% 85% 
Wait Times from Diagnosis to Adjuvant Chemotherapy  2009 2010 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage within target (120 days) for Stage I/II/III breast cancer patients diagnosed in 2010 Better than Ont Average - Performance is Better84.6% 86.6% 81.8% 68.3% 93.3% None 
Percentage within target (120 days) for Stage III colon cancer patients diagnosed in 2010 Better than Ont Average - Performance is Worse91.1% 88.7% 85.5% 75.0% 95.4% None 
Wait Times from Surgery to Adjuvant Chemotherapy  2009 2010 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy within 60 days of surgery, for Stage III colon cancer patients Better than Ont Average - Performance is Worse73.4% 66.7% 57.8% 33.3% 90.0% None 
Patient Experience with Outpatient Cancer Care  2011 2012 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Average cancer patient satisfaction scores for specific questions related to coordination and continuity of care "Patient knew the next step in his/her care".  Same as Ont Average - Performance is Better56.7% 59.8% 60.6% 53.8% 67.2% None 
Average cancer patient satisfaction scores for specific questions related to coordination and continuity of care "Family doctor knew enough about patient's cancer care" Worse than Ont Average - Performance is Worse57.1% 54.4% 58.3% 51.5% 64.3% None 
Symptom Assessment & Management  2010 2012 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of cancer patients who were screened at least once per month for symptom severity (4) Better than Ont Average - Performance is Better44.1% 62.1% 52.7% 19.0% 90.5% 70% 
  2012 2013 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of patients who said their health care team took into account their Edmonton Symptom Assessment (ESAS) scores Same as Ont Average - Performance is Worse90.9% 88.3% 89.4% 72.5% 99.0% None 
Percentage of patients who said their physical symptoms were controlled to a comfortable level Same as Ont Average - No Substantial Change90.1% 89.3% 90.0% 81.8% 94.4% None 
Percentage of patients who said that their healthcare team responded to their feelings of anxiety or depression Worse than Ont Average - Performance is Worse83.1% 80.4% 85.5% 66.2% 94.5% None 
Percentage of patients who said that their healthcare team talked with them about their Edmonton Symptom Assessment (ESAS) scores Worse than Ont AverageNA 63.7% 65.7% 41.9% 86.5% None 
 
RECOVERY At a Glance Comparison Data Most Recent Data     
Survivorship   2009 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Percentage of breast cancer survivors diagnosed in 2009 with no mammogram in their first follow-up year (13 to 24 months from diagnosis) Worse than Ont AverageNA 25.6% 22.9% 19.8% 35.8% None 
Percentage of colorectal cancer survivors diagnosed in 2009 receiving at least one colonoscopy within 12 months after surgery Better than Ont AverageNA 64.3% 62.2% 51.6% 82.2% None 
Percentage of colorectal cancer survivors diagnosed in 2009 receiving at least one colonoscopy within 18 months after surgery Same as Ont AverageNA 82.6% 81.4% 75.5% 91.1% None 
 
END-OF-LIFE At a Glance Comparison Data Most Recent Data     
End-of-Life Care  2008 2009 Ontario Average Min Value in Ontario Max Value in Ontario Target  
Median time (in days) prior to death that patients are referred to Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) home care Same as Ont Average - Performance is Better75 77 78 62 104 None 
Percentage of patients referred to Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) home care in the last 2 weeks of life Same as Ont Average - No Substantial Change8.9% 8.6% 8.4% 5.2% 11.0% None 
Percentage of cancer patients who visited the emergency department (ED) in the last 2 weeks of life Better than Ont Average - No Substantial Change37.0% 37.5% 42.8% 35.9% 50.9% None 
Percentage of cancer patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in the last two weeks of life Same as Ont Average - No Substantial Change7.8% 7.4% 7.8% 5.1% 9.2% None 
Percentage of cancer patients who died in an acute care hospital Better than Ont Average - No Substantial Change42.5% 41.9% 53.1% 40.9% 70.9% None 
Median length of stay (in days) in acute care for cancer patients in the last 2 months of life in Ontario Better than Ont Average - No Substantial Change11 None 

View Notes

  1. Juravinski (Hamilton) is implementing a LHIN-wide oncology information system and retrospective data from June 2012 is impacted. Low volumes in ALR are observed from October to December 2012.
  2. Juravinski (Hamilton) is implementing a LHIN-wide oncology information system and retrospective data from June 2012 is impacted. No volumes in ALR are observed for December 2012.
  3. All analysis for 2012 excludes Juravinski (Hamilton) which is implementing a LHIN-wide oncology information system and retrospective data from June 2012 is impacted.
  4. Juravinski (Hamilton) is implementing a LHIN-wide oncology information system and retrospective data from June 2012 is impacted.