# Fostering continuous quality improvement in a European rare disease network

Olivia K C Spivack, Willemijn F E Irvine, Steffen Husby, Tomas Wester, René M H Wijnen

► To cite this version:

Olivia K C Spivack, Willemijn F E Irvine, Steffen Husby, Tomas Wester, René M H Wijnen. Fostering continuous quality improvement in a European rare disease network. Frontiers in Health Services, 2025, Frontiers in Health Services, 5, pp.1609018. 10.3389/frhs.2025.1609018. hal-05129836

HAL Id: hal-05129836

https://lilloa.hal.science/hal-05129836v1

Submitted on 25 Jun 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

OPEN ACCESS

EDITED BY
Mahmut Cerkez Ergoren,
Near East University, Cyprus

REVIEWED BY
Şehime Gülsün Ternel,
Bursa Uludağ University, Türkiye

*CORRESPONDENCE

Olivia K. C. Spivack

o.spivack@erasmusmc.nl

¹These authors share first authorship

RECEIVED 09 April 2025

ACCEPTED 05 May 2025

PUBLISHED 22 May 2025

CITATION

Spivack OKC, Irvine WFE, Husby S, ERNICA Representatives, Wester T and Wijnen RMH (2025) Fostering continuous quality improvement in a European rare disease network.
Front. Health Serv. 5:1609018.
doi: 10.3389/frhs.2025.1609018

COPYRIGHT

© 2025 Spivack, Irvine, Husby, ERNICA Representatives, Wester and Wijnen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Fostering continuous quality improvement in a European rare disease network

Olivia K. C. Spivack<fnref n="1" />*†, Willemijn F. E. Irvine<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />†, Steffen Husby³, ERNICA Representatives, Tomas Wester⁴,⁵ and René M. H. Wijnen<fnref n="1" />

**Background:** The European Reference Network for rare Inherited Congenital Anomalies (ERNICA) is a clinical network dedicated to improving the quality of care for patients with rare and complex digestive and gastrointestinal diseases, many of whom require surgery in early life. The network brings together clinicians, researchers and patient representatives from 22 countries in Europe. By pooling expertise, ERNICA is able to facilitate improvement initiatives that may not otherwise be possible. However, describing the desired quality of care and transferring it to local practice remains a challenge, complicated by our low-prevalence patient population, multidisciplinary clinical involvement and heterogeneous European context. In an attempt to mitigate these challenges, and foster a system of continuous quality improvement, we present the "ERNICA quality cycle".

**Main body:** The ERNICA quality cycle is comprised of five steps: (1) Describing the desired quality of care (2) Promoting guideline implementation (3) Measuring quality of care (4) Evaluating clinical practice (5) Conducting research. It offers a structured, continuous and collaborative approach to the improvement of care for patients with rare and complex digestive and gastrointestinal diseases. Evaluating the approach, through qualitative process evaluation, will be critical to capturing learning points.

**Conclusions:** The ERNICA quality cycle holds tremendous potential for improving the quality of care for patients with rare and complex conditions, both within ERNICA and for other European Reference Networks.

KEYWORDS

cross-border, collaboration, rare diseases, quality improvement, implementation science, European reference network

## Background

High-quality healthcare can be defined as "doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, for the right person and having the best results possible" (1). In the field of rare diseases, it can be challenging to determine what "high-quality" care looks like and how it can be achieved. In Europe, rare diseases have been defined as conditions affecting less than one in 2,000 people, with seventy-five percent affecting children (2, 3). Although committed to their patients, healthcare professionals caring for those with rare diseases may have limited disease-specific knowledge. They may encounter a lack of resources, an absence of high-quality evidence and a very small patient

<footnote n="1">¹Department of Pediatric Surgery, Erasmus MC Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands,</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Department of Evidence Based Medicine and Methodology, Qualicura Healthcare Support Agency,</footnote>

<footnote>Breda, Netherlands, ³Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of</footnote>

<footnote>Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark, ⁴Department of Women's and Children's Health,</footnote>

<footnote>Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, ⁵Unit of Pediatric Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital,</footnote>

<footnote>Stockholm, Sweden</footnote>
population which is geographically dispersed. To improve care for individuals affected by rare diseases, collaborative networks and cross-border efforts are imperative.

The European Reference Network for rare Inherited Congenital Anomalies (ERNICA) is one of 24 European Reference Networks (ERNs) launched by the European Commission in 2017 (4). See Supplementary File 1 for a full list of ERNs. Bringing together multidisciplinary expert teams and patient representatives from across Europe, these networks aim to pool knowledge on rare and/or complex diseases requiring specialized care. Each ERN focuses on a thematic group of diseases. For ERNICA, this includes diseases and/or malformations of the digestive system, diaphragm and abdominal wall. Multidisciplinary care is essential for these patients, across the lifespan from before birth through to adulthood. In 2017, 20 hospitals across 10 European countries were accepted as ERNICA members. As of 2024, ERNICA is comprised of 39 member and 13 affiliated partner hospitals, from 21 European countries. Clinical representatives work in partnership with patient representatives, whose involvement is endorsed by recognized local, national and/or international patient organizations (5). See Figure 1 for an overview of countries with ERNICA member/affiliated partner involvement. Additional countries with patient groups represented are also displayed.

While cross-border collaboration is of utmost importance, ERNICA's European reach comes hand-in-hand with context heterogeneity. Hospitals operate within heterogeneous healthcare systems and may be governed by national laws and regulations. Clinical practices may also vary between hospitals in a single country. This runs the risk of unwarranted practice variation; differences in healthcare processes or outcomes that cannot be explained by patient characteristics or patient preference (6, 7). In the absence of relevant and widely accepted metrics, high-quality evidence, clinical knowledge and experience, it can be challenging to define how *"the best possible results"* can be achieved for our patients. To overcome these challenges (8), and foster a system of continuous quality improvement, we present an iterative framework referred to as the "ERNICA quality cycle".

## The ERNICA quality cycle

The ERNICA quality cycle is comprised of five steps: (1) Describing the desired quality of care; (2) Promoting guideline implementation; (3) Measuring quality of care; (4) Evaluating clinical practice and (5) Conducting research. See Figure 2 for a

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

visual outline of the ERNICA quality cycle. In this paper, we describe each step of the ERNICA quality cycle in turn. The structure, and underlying principles of the ERNICA quality cycle are inspired by the “Plan-Do-Study-Act” (PDSA) cycle (9), a widely used framework for continuous improvement popularized by W. Edwards Demming in the 1950s (10). This four-step cycle involves planning, testing and evaluating (context-specific) change initiatives (9) and is grounded in principles of iterative learning, collaboration and evidence-based decision making.

# 1 Describing the desired quality of care

To describe high-quality care, ERNICA facilitates the development of clinical practice guidelines. This process involves multidisciplinary clinical experts, researchers and patient representatives and is supported by a methodologist (6). Participants are selected from expert centers connected to ERNICA for the disease of interest. Attention is given to ensure geographical spread and a balance of relevant disciplines and

expertise. A prioritization exercise takes place to decide on the topics of focus and an evidence-based development method is followed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system guides the assessment of evidence quality and the development of care recommendations (11, 12). This structured approach has been used most recently to develop ERNICA guidelines on necrotizing enterocolitis (13) and gastroschisis (14).

However, this process is often complicated by a lack of high-quality evidence and high heterogeneity in reported outcomes. Uncertain outcome estimates can make it difficult to reach agreement on specific recommendations (6). For diseases with very limited data, such as total colonic aganglionosis (TCA) and pediatric esophageal achalasia, the development of formal clinical consensus statements using a (modified) Delphi approach has proven a viable alternative (15). The development processes for both evidence-based guidelines and consensus statements are explained in Supplementary File 2.

ERNICA is also prioritizing the testing of adapted, innovative methodological strategies to support guideline development in
our context (8). This involves the supplementary use of “real
world” clinical audit data and the use of indirect evidence (e.g.,
data from adults with the same rare disease, data on ventilation
outcomes in a general neonatal population), n = 1 trials (where
multiple treatment strategies are tested on a single patient using
a cross-over design), as well as the incorporation of expert
opinion solicited through structured observation forms.

Recommendations reported in ERNICA clinical guidelines/
consensus statements are also used to inform the development of
disease-specific quality indicators (16). These include structural,
process and outcome indicators. See Supplementary File 3 for
descriptions of each. Baseline characteristics facilitate
interpretation of results, altogether forming a “core indicator set”.
A methodologically sound approach is followed for development,
involving a literature review and (modified) Delphi study with
international stakeholders, including multidisciplinary clinicians,
researchers and patient representatives. This process has been
completed for esophageal atresia (17, 18) and Hirschsprung’s
disease (19) and is underway for gastroschisis, omphalocele,
intestinal atresia, necrotizing enterocolitis and intestinal
malrotation. Once developed, these disease-specific indicator sets
are integrated into the European Pediatric Surgical Audit (EPSA),
a clinical audit tool used by both ERNICA and non-ERNICA
centers (16, 20).

Variability in how terms are used and interpreted can pose
challenges during the development of both guidelines and clinical
indicator sets. Attempts to standardize definitions through group
consensus are underway. In the meantime, terms are
accompanied with clear and consistent explanations to promote
shared understanding.

## 2 Promoting guideline implementation

Efforts are required to ensure the desired quality of care is
implemented in clinical practice. When implemented
successfully, ERNICA's clinical guidelines are expected to narrow
unwarranted practice variation and ultimately, improve quality of
care, clinical outcomes and patient experiences. However, there
are long-standing challenges surrounding the uptake of clinical
guideline recommendations in practice (21). How
recommendations are developed and presented to clinicians may
influence a guideline's trustworthiness, clinical credibility and
implementability (6, 22). During the ERNICA guideline
development process, resources designed to increase
implementability, such as the Appraisal of Guidelines REsearch
and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence (AGREE-REX)
reporting checklist (23, 24) are drawn upon.

A range of factors, pertaining to the individual health
professional(s) [e.g., knowledge and skills, cognitions (including
attitudes), professional behavior] and their professional
interactions, the patients themselves (e.g., needs, beliefs,
knowledge, preferences, motivation and behavior), the availability
of incentives and resources, the capacity for organizational
change and the wider social, political and legal environment may
also hinder and/or facilitate successful guideline implementation

(6, 22). A Central Implementation Support Team (the ERNICA
CIST) has been established as a cross-disease ERNICA working
group. Made up of key stakeholders with relevant position(s),
expertise and/or interest, the CIST is dedicated to supporting the
successful uptake of clinical guidelines in European practice.

To guide the CIST's ongoing efforts, an implementation
agenda has been developed, initially focused on three diseases for
which ERNICA guidelines/consensus statements exist or are
planned: omphalocele, esophageal atresia and rectosigmoid
Hirschsprung's disease. Surveys have been circulated to healthcare
providers involved in ERNICA and/or the EPSA, to obtain
disease-specific "baseline" overviews of care practices in Europe.
These overviews will provide insight into areas of potential
(unwarranted) practice variation, providing a view into
differences between hospitals as well as deviations from
established guideline recommendations. This understanding will
lay the foundation for further investigation into the factors
foreseen to hinder and/or facilitate successful implementation.
Results will be used to inform the (collaborative) selection of
implementation strategies for execution (21, 25). Example
strategies include: professional (e.g., distribution of guideline
material, presentation at meetings), financial (e.g., incentives,
grants/allowance, penalties), organizational (e.g., human resources,
consumer involvement), structural (e.g., organizational structure,
setting/site), regulatory (e.g., legislation, accreditation), and
patient/consumer strategies (e.g., printed material, patient
education) (26, 27).

Throughout, the CIST will have a focus on providing local
teams with practical, stepped support. To facilitate good
communication, "implementation leads" are locally appointed at
each center. Implementation leads will serve as the local point of
contact, playing a key role in identifying and/or involving
relevant team members and local stakeholders.

## 3 Measuring quality of care

To measure performance, and monitor implementation
success, a standardized approach to data collection is warranted
(28). The EPSA clinical audit tool facilitates the collection of
prospective patient data aligned to the aforementioned (disease-
specific) core indicator sets. The EPSA was originally developed
by the Dutch Association of Pediatric Surgeons in 2014 and is
hosted by the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA) (16,
20). Over recent years, ERNICA has facilitated international
expansion of the EPSA, with 34 hospitals across 18 countries
currently connected (see Supplementary File 4). Twenty-six of
these hospitals are part of the ERNICA network.

For hospitals registering their patients, we will attempt to
employ the EPSA as a centrally-led continuous feedback
mechanism to monitor guideline implementation and its impact
(6). Where not already aligned, this requires incorporating
guideline recommendation-specific variables into the disease-
specific core indicator sets. This will make it possible to compare
center performance with guideline recommendation(s) as the
"care standard". For example, for a recommendation on post-
surgical feeding practices, the core indicator set should capture
differences between pre-and post-surgical feeding as well as
feeding types.

Such a feedback mechanism relies heavily on the EPSA being
used by healthcare professionals in practice. We will therefore
continue to focus on areas considered to be influential in
implementing multi-center comparative audits, namely
encouraging audit participation, generating “trustworthy” data
and ensuring audit sustainability (including financial
sustainability) (16, 29, 30). As both a multicenter, and European
audit, we will continue to facilitate the provision of legal/
regulatory support to those interested in connecting. Reducing
the administrative burden also remains fundamental (16).

While EPSA is named a “pediatric surgical audit”, its core
indicator sets include variables relevant to multiple disciplines
(e.g., prenatal specialists). Initiatives are therefore underway to
promote locally coordinated patient registration. Long-term
follow-up data and patient-reported outcomes are not yet
registered but are under consideration for the future (16).

The aim of the EPSA is to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and best practice and drive (local) quality improvement. This is done by feeding back data to participating hospitals on their performance and by creating opportunities for collaborative learning. EPSA's Codman Dashboard provides users with “real time” feedback on their center's performance, benchmarked against the European mean. Annual feedback sessions take place, where aggregated data is presented and used to stimulate group discussion (16).

Providing feedback to healthcare professionals on their
performance can be a highly effective way to stimulate behavior
change towards desired practices (31, 32). EPSA “audit and
feedback” (A&F) therefore holds great potential for improving
center performance and increasing levels of guideline adherence.
However, the effectiveness of A&F has proven to be highly
variable (31, 32), with unintended, adverse effects having also
been reported (33). The International A&F Metalab (34), a
research group in the field, provides theory- and evidence-
informed guidance to maximize the effectiveness of A&F (31, 32,
35, 36). Together with users, we will review such guidance,
reflecting on the EPSA’s current status, as well as future
possibilities for the provision of feedback within our context.

One recurring recommendation is to provide “actionable”
feedback, alongside explicit “action plans” (29, 31, 32, 36, 37).
Driving local improvement through clinical auditing relies on
planning and testing change initiatives (38). This is crucial to
ensuring completion of the clinical audit cycle (See
*Supplementary File 5*); a chain of events that is “*only as strong as
its weakest link*” (38). To facilitate its completion, local teams will
be supported to engage in action planning on the basis of EPSA
feedback. Such plans may incorporate the tailored guideline
implementation strategies identified in Step 2. In this way, the
EPSA is employed as a centrally-led guideline implementation
strategy with local site tailoring.

Considering our rare disease context, where numbers are low and
guideline recommendations often conditional, supplementary
measures may be needed to validate EPSA feedback. To identify
practice variation that is truly unwarranted, patient characteristics

(case-mix) and patient preference (e.g., as part of shared decision-
making) should also be accounted for (16, 39). Such considerations
will be further explored and addressed. Moreover, not all ERNICA
centers are connected to the EPSA. For non-EPSA centers, alternative
ways of monitoring implementation success will be explored.

4 Evaluating clinical practice

Evaluation is essential to assess the success of our efforts and plan for the next iteration of the cycle. We will attempt to use the EPSA to re-audit center practices and associated outcomes. Aggregated EPSA data (alongside other potential measures) can provide insight into levels of (unwarranted) practice, and outcome variation across Europe. Process evaluations with local teams, using both qualitative and quantitative approaches, will also be key to exploring the when, where, why, and how behind successful, or failed guideline implementation (40). Implementation strategies will be iteratively, and collaboratively refined. In this way, EPSA as a quality improvement initiative benefits from the incorporation of implementation science principles (41). Opportunities will also be created to capture and build on community learning experiences.

Further, such insights into practice/outcome variation can play a
role in identifying the need for new guidelines, revisions and/or
additional research. ERNICA guidelines/consensus statements are
routinely assessed for revision every five years. Knowledge gaps for
future research are also identified and prioritized (42). Patient
journeys can help to identify and prioritize areas for patient-
centered research (43, 44). Within ERNICA, patient journeys set
out to describe the key stages in a patient’s life from possible
prenatal diagnosis to adulthood. Needs and ideal support scenarios
from the patient perspective are mapped out at each stage (43).

5 Conducting research

Closing knowledge gaps demands ongoing, rigorous research. Such research helps advance our understanding of what constitutes the “desired quality of care”. Prioritized topics may be identified both in Step 4 and in Step 1 of the cycle. With “high-quality” care patient-centered, the appropriate use of psychometrically-robust Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in research is also key (45). This is particularly critical in the rare disease context, where medical knowledge is often limited.

Conducting high-quality research on topics relevant to low-
prevalence conditions can, however, be challenging (6). Small
sample sizes, observational study designs and heterogeneous (6)
and/or low-quality (46) outcome reporting often prevent us from
drawing firm conclusions. Furthermore, enrolling pediatric
patients in clinical trials involving surgical interventions can pose
legal and ethical challenges (6). International collaboration,
facilitated by ERNICA, is fundamental to increasing
opportunities for trials and other research activities involving
larger samples. Disease-specific core outcome sets (COS) are
critical to ensure standardized outcome reporting (6). ERNICA
has and continues to play a role in initiating and facilitating the
development of COS (47, 48).

Discussion

Applying and evaluating the ERNICA
quality cycle

Engaging our network and instilling a non-judgemental culture of improvement will be fundamental to the success of this initiative (49, 50). Relevant stakeholders may include multidisciplinary clinicians, researchers, policy makers, hospital management and patient representatives. With support of the CIST, centers' implementation leads will play a key role in engaging and liaising with local stakeholders.

Application of this structured approach to quality improvement is novel within our context. Capturing learning points through qualitative process evaluation is key to evaluating its success, exploring, for example, how activities progress and the experiences and opinions of those involved (40). The approach will be piloted for three ERNICA diseases; *omphalocele, esophageal atresia and rectosigmoid Hirschsprung's disease*. Rigorous evaluation will shed light on its potential value for other ERNICA diseases. The sustainability of care improvements also warrants specific thought and attention, considering the potential for changing guideline recommendations over time.

A European Commission report was recently published outlining the results of the comprehensive 5-year evaluation of the ERNs and their members (51). Implementing (and measuring the implementation) of clinical practice guidelines was specifically highlighted as an area for improvement. ERNICA's cyclical approach to improving care quality may therefore also be of value to other ERNs.

To promote inclusivity and increase equity, this initiative is not limited to centers considered to have disease-specific “expertise”. Amongst other criteria, ERNICA expert centers (“members”) are required to meet a disease-specific threshold of five new patients per year. Non-member centers may connect to the EPSA, if they treat a minimum of five new patients per year for at least one registered disease (16). However, it may be that not all centers treating patients with rare and complex digestive and gastrointestinal diseases are connected to ERNICA and/or the EPSA.

Although efforts have been made to promote broad geographic coverage within the ERN system, there are recognized opportunities for improvement (51). Current funding allows for a restricted number of EPSA connections. To promote equitable participation, ongoing and additional funding is warranted. Moreover, to facilitate centers' involvement, we call for explicit national/international legislation on data collection for quality assurance purposes (30).

Individual countries are responsible for the designation of
centers to ERNs. However, in some countries, care is centralized
and in others, it is not. Centers situated in countries with de-
centralized healthcare systems may never meet the
aforementioned patient threshold. Engaging with national health

ministries is therefore encouraged to optimize patient coverage (52). With caseload considered a “driving force for quality” (52), evaluating “high-quality” care should also be looked at in context and with this considered.

Conclusion

As an ERN, ERNICA strives to improve the quality of care for patients with rare and complex digestive and gastrointestinal diseases. To foster a system of continuous quality improvement, we present the “ERNICA quality cycle”. This approach will be applied and will be subject to rigorous evaluation. It holds tremendous potential for use in other rare disease networks (ERNs), in support of our collective mission to improve rare disease care in Europe.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included
in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be
directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

OS: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. WI:
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SH:
Writing – review & editing. ER: Writing – review & editing.
TW: Writing – review & editing. RW: Writing – review & editing.

Group authorship: ERNICA
representatives

ERNICA disease-specific working group leads, members of the ERNICA Central Implementation Support Team (CIST) and chairs of the ERNICA Scientific Committee.

Mikko Pakarinen: ERNICA Intestinal Diseases working group lead (Department of Pediatric Surgery, Pediatric Liver and Gut Research Group, New Children's Hospital, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland); Annette Lemli: ERNICA Intestinal Diseases working group lead (SoMA, The German Patient Support Organization for Anorectal Malformations and Hirschsprung Disease, Munich, Germany); Stefaan Tytgat: ERNICA Esophageal Diseases working group lead (Department of Pediatric Surgery, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands); Frederic Gottrand: ERNICA Esophageal Diseases working group lead (Esophageal Atresia Global Support Groups, Stuttgart, Germany); Annika Mutanen: ERNICA Intestinal Failure working group lead (Department of Pediatric Surgery, The New Children's Hospital, Helsinki University Hospital and
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland); Merit Tabbers: ERNICA Intestinal Failure working group lead (1. Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam University Medical Centers University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 2. Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Child development, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 3. Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology, Metabolism, Amsterdam, Netherlands); Mark Bremholm Ellebæk: ERNICA Gastroenterological Diseases working group lead (1. Research Unit for Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; University of Southern Denmark, Odense Denmark. 2. Centre of Excellence in Gastrointestinal Diseases and Malformations in Infancy and Childhood (GAIN) Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark & University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 3. Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark); Jan Deprest: ERNICA Malformations of the Diaphragm working group lead (1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium. 2. My FetUZ Lab, Department of Development and Regeneration, Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 3. Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK); Laurent Storme: ERNICA Malformations of the Diaphragm working group lead (1. Department of Neonatology, Jeanne de Flandre Hospital, University Hospital of Lille, F-59000 France. 2. METRICS, University of Lille, Lille F-59000 France); Paolo de Coppi: ERNICA Malformations of the Diaphragm working group lead (1. Great Ormond Street Hospital & Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK. 2. My FetUZ Lab, Department of Development and Regeneration, Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 3. Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, Rome, Italy); Beverley Power: ERNICA Malformations of the Diaphragm working group lead [CDH UK - The Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Charity reg no. 1106065 (England & Wales) SC042410 (Scotland)]; Alexandra Benachi: ERNICA Abdominal Wall Defects working group lead (1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Antoine Béclère Hospital. AP-PH. Clamart France. 2. Paris Saclay University. Clamart. France); Carmen Mesas Burgos: ERNICA Abdominal Wall Defects working group lead and ERNICA CIST member (Department of Pediatric Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden); Polona Studen Pauletić: ERNICA CIST member (Department of Pediatric Surgery, University Medical Center Ljubljana, Slovenia); Rony Sfeir: ERNICA CIST member (Department of Pediatric Surgery, CRACMO, CHRU Lille, France); Erwin Ista: ERNICA CIST member (1. Department of Neonatal and Pediatric Intensive Care, Division of Pediatric Intensive Care, Erasmus MC Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nursing Science, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands); Michaela Dellenmark-Blom: ERNICA CIST member (1. Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Gothenburg Institute of Clinical Sciences, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Department of Pediatric Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital Queen Silvia Children's Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden); Alessio Pini Prato:

ERNICA CIST member (Department of Pediatric Surgery, Umberto Bosio Center for Digestive Diseases, The Children Hospital AO SS Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo, Alessandria, Italy); Anke Widenmann: ERNICA CIST member (Esophageal Atresia Global Support Groups, Stuttgart, Germany); Romee van Steekelenburg, Marlinde van der Kamp, Daniel Rossi: ERNICA CIST members (1. Department of Pediatric Surgery, Erasmus MC Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 2. Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing: Leiden, NL. Additional for Daniel Rossi: 3. Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden); Iris den Uijl: ERNICA CIST member (Department of Pediatric Surgery, Erasmus MC Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands); Roel Bakx: ERNICA Scientific Committee Chair (Department of Pediatric Surgery, Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands); Francesca Russo: ERNICA Scientific Committee Chair (1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium. 2. My FetUZ Lab, Department of Development and Regeneration, Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium).

First author Olivia K.C. Spivack coordinates the ERNICA CIST. First author Willemijn F.E. Irvine and last author René M.H. Wijnen are also members of the ERNICA CIST.

## Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This paper was generated within the European Reference Network for rare Inherited Congenital Anomalies (ERNICA). ERNICA is currently funded by the EU4Health Programme 2023-2027 (Project 101155831 - EU4H-2023-ERN-IBA). The manuscript's open-access publication costs were financed by the Department of Pediatric Surgery, Erasmus MC Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Jana Steerneman for her support with designing the ERNICA quality cycle visual. This paper was generated within the European Reference Network for rare Inherited Congenital Anomalies (ERNICA). ERNICA is currently funded by the EU4Health Programme 2023-2027. The content of this publication represents the views of the authors only and it is their sole responsibility; it cannot be considered to reflect the views of the European Commission and/or the Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA) or any other body of the European Union. The European Commission and the agency do not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.

## Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
# Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

# Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations,

or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

# Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frhs.2025.1609018/full#supplementary-material

# References

1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality UDoH, and Human Services. *National Healthcare Quality & Disparities Report*. (2019).

2. EURORDIS Rare Disease Europe. What is a rare disease? Available at: https://www.eurordis.org/information-support/what-is-a-rare-disease/ (accessed August 8, 2024)

3. Nguengang Wakap S, Lambert DM, Olry A, Rodwell C, Gueydan C, Lanneau V, et al. Estimating cumulative point prevalence of rare diseases: analysis of the orphanet database. *Eur J Hum Genet.* (2020) 28(2):165-73. doi: 10.1038/s41431-019-0508-0

4. European Commission. Rare diseases and European Reference Networks. Available at: https://health.ec.europa.eu/rare-diseases-and-european-reference-networks_en (accessed August 8, 2024)

5. Spivack OKC, Klein Haneveld MJ, Louisse S, Slater G, Hernando I. Supporting the continuous development and use of a patient partnership framework in European rare disease networks (ERNs): a scoping review of frameworks in the scientific literature. *J Community Genet.* (2024) 16(1):15-28. doi: 10.1007/s12687-024-00763-2

6. Irvine WFE, Spivack OKC, Ista E. Moving toward the development and effective implementation of high-quality guidelines in pediatric surgery: a review of the literature. *Eur J Pediatr Surg.* (2024) 34(2):115-27. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1778020

7. Wennberg JE. Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres. *Br Med J.* (2002) 325(7370):961-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b325.7370.961

8. Walshe K, Freeman T. Effectiveness of quality improvement: learning from evaluations. *Qual Saf Health Care.* (2002) 11(1):85-7. doi: 10.1136/qhc.11.1.85

9. Taylor MJ, McNicholas C, Nicolay C, Darzi A, Bell D, Reed JE. Systematic review of the application of the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in healthcare. *BMJ Qual Saf.* (2014) 23(4):290-8. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862

10. Moen R. Foundation and History of the PDSA Cycle. (2020).

11. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. *Br Med J.* (2008) 336(7650):924-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD

12. Moberg J, Oxman AD, Rosenbaum S, Schünemann HJ, Guyatt G, Flottorp S, et al. The GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions. *Health Res Policy Syst.* (2018) 16(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0320-2

13. Hulscher J, Irvine W, Conforti A, Di Cesare A, Ichino M, Sfeir R, et al. European reference network for inherited and congenital anomalies evidence-based guideline on surgical aspects of necrotizing enterocolitis in premature neonates. *Neonatology.* (2025) 122:376-84. doi: 10.1159/000542540

14. Burgos CM, Irvine W, Vivanti A, Conner P, Machtejeviene E, Peters N, et al. European reference network for rare inherited congenital anomalies (ERNICA) evidence based guideline on the management of gastroschisis. *Orphanet J Rare Dis.* (2024) 19(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s13023-024-03062-8

15. Granström AL, Irvine W, Hoel AT, Tabbers M, Kyrklund K, Leon FF, et al. Errica clinical consensus statements on total colonic and intestinal aganglionosis. *J Pediatr Saf.* (2024) 59(10):161565. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2024.04.019

16. Teunissen NM, Rossi D, Wouters MW, Eaton S, van Heurn LWE, Wijnen R. The European pediatric surgical audit: improving quality of care in rare congenital malformations. *Eur J Pediatr Surg.* (2025). doi: 10.1055/a-2551-2056

17. Teunissen N, Brendel J, Eaton S, Hall N, Thursfield R, van Heurn ELW, et al. Variability in the reporting of baseline characteristics, treatment, and outcomes in esophageal atresia publications: a systematic review. *Eur J Pediatr Surg.* (2023) 33(2):129-37. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1758828

18. Teunissen NM, Brendel J, Heurn L, Ure B, Wijnen R, Eaton S. Selection of quality indicators to evaluate quality of care for patients with esophageal atresia

using a Delphi method. *Eur J Pediatr Surg.* (2023) 34(5):398-409. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1777100

19. Rossi D, Löf Granström A, Teunissen NM, Wijnen RMH, Wester T, Sloots CEJ. Bridging the gap: a systematic review on reporting baseline characteristics, process, and outcome parameters in rectosigmoid Hirschsprung's disease. *Eur J Pediatr Surg.* (2024) 34(2):189-98. doi: 10.1055/a-2198-9050

20. Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA). Kinderchirurgie—EPSA—European Pediatric Surgical Audit. Available at: https://dica.nl/registratie/kinderchirurgie-epsa/ (Accessed April 08, 2025).

21. Wilson P, Kislov R. Implementation Science. (2022). Available at: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=q62aEAAAQBAJ&oi=ind&pg=PT11&dq=16.%09Wilson#v=onepage&q=16.%09Wilson&f=false (accessed August 8, 2024)

22. Flottorp SA, Oxman AD, Krause J, Musila NR, Wensing M, Godycki-Cwirko M, et al. A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: a systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. *Implement Sci.* (2013) 8:35. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-35

23. Brouwers MC, Spithoff K, Kerkvliet K, Alonso-Coello P, Burgers J, Cluzeau F, et al. Development and validation of a tool to assess the quality of clinical practice guideline recommendations. *JAMA Netw Open.* (2020) 3(5):e205535. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.5535

24. AGREE Trust. AGREE-REX: Recommendation EXcellence. Available at: https://www.agreetrust.org/resource-centre/agree-rex-recommendation-excellence/ (accessed August 8, 2024)

25. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. *Implement Sci.* (2015) 10:53. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0

26. Mazza D, Bairstow P, Buchan H, Chakraborty SP, Van Hecke O, Grech C, et al. Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification. *Implement Sci.* (2013) 8:32. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-32

27. Gagliardi AR, Alhabib S. Trends in guideline implementation: a scoping systematic review. *Implement Sci.* (2015) 10:54. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0247-8

28. Teunissen NM, Wijnen RMH. Unlocking the power of data: standardized data collection in pediatric surgery. *Eur J Pediatr Surg.* (2024) 34(2):113-4. doi: 10.1055/a-2206-6790

29. McGlacken-Byrne SM, Murphy NP, Barry S. A realist synthesis of multicentre comparative audit implementation: exploring what works and in which healthcare contexts. *BMJ Open Qual.* (2024) 13(1):e002629. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2023-002629

30. Teunissen N. Doctoral thesis: improving quality of care for rare congenital malformations: achieving standardized quality measurement and improvement through international clinical auditing. Erasmus University Rotterdam (2023).

31. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. *Cochrane Database Syst Rev.* (2012) 2012(6):Cd000259. doi: 10.1002/14651858. CD000259.pub3

32. Ivers N, Yogasingam S, Lacroix M, Brown KA, Antony J, Soobiah C, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice. *Cochrane Database Syst Rev.* (2025) 3(3):Cd000259. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub4

33. Duncan EM, Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM. Channelling the force of audit and feedback: averting the dark side. *BMJ Qual Saf.* (2022) 31(10):695-7. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014520

34. Grimshaw JM, Ivers N, Linklater S, Foy R, Francis JJ, Gude WT, et al. Reinvigorating stagnant science: implementation laboratories and a meta-laboratory to efficiently advance the science of audit and feedback. *BMJ Qual Saf.* (2019) 28(5):416-23. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008355
35. Brown B, Gude WT, Blakeman T, van der Veer SN, Ivers N, Francis JJ, et al. Clinical performance feedback intervention theory (CP-FIT): a new theory for designing, implementing, and evaluating feedback in health care based on a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research. *Implement Sci.* (2019) 14(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0883-5

36. Brehaut JC, Colquhoun HL, Eva KW, Carroll K, Sales A, Michie S, et al. Practice feedback interventions: 15 suggestions for optimizing effectiveness. *Ann Intern Med.* (2016) 164(6):435–41. doi: 10.7326/M15-2248

37. Gude WT, Roos-Blom MJ, van der Veer SN, Dongelmans DA, de Jonge E, Peek N, et al. Facilitating action planning within audit and feedback interventions: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an action implementation toolbox in intensive care. *Implement Sci.* (2019) 14(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0937-8

38. Foy R, Skrypak M, Alderson S, Ivers NM, McInerney B, Stoddart J, et al. Revitalising audit and feedback to improve patient care. *Br Med J.* (2020) 368:m213. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m213

39. Vink MDH, de Bekker P, Koolman X, van Tulder MW, de Vries R, Mol BWJ, et al. Design characteristics of studies on medical practice variation of caesarean section rates: a scoping review. *BMC Pregnancy Childbirth*. (2020) 20(1):478. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03169-3

40. Hulscher M, Wensing M. Process evaluation of implementation strategies. In: *Improving Patient Care: The Implementation of Change in Healthcare*. 3rd ed. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell (2020). p. 369–89.

41. Sullivan GA, Schäfer WLA, Raval MV, Johnson JK. Implementation science for quality improvement in pediatric surgery. *Semin Pediatr Surg.* (2023) 32(2):151282. doi: 10.1016/j.sempedsurg.2023.151282

42. Nagelkerke S, Lambe C, Wijnen R, Tabbers M. P1.19: top-ten research topics in paediatric chronic intestinal failure, on behalf of the European reference network for rare inherited and congenital anomalies (ERNICA)—intestinal failure working group*. *Transplantation*. (2019) 103(7S2):S68. doi: 10.1097/01.tp.0000575796. 68593.e4

43. ERNICA. Patient Journeys. Available at: https://www.ern-ernica.eu/patient-journeys (accessed December 17, 2024)

44. Power B. The CDH patient perspective journey. *Front Pediatr.* (2023) 11:1052422. doi: 10.3389/fped.2023.1052422

45. Spivack OKC, Dellenmark-Blom M, Dingemann J, Ten Kate CA, Wallace V, Bramer WM, et al. A narrative review of patient-reported outcome measures and their application in recent pediatric surgical research: advancing knowledge and offering new perspectives to the field. *Eur J Pediatr Surg.* (2024) 34(2):143–61. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1778108

46. Abbassi F, Pfister M, Domenghino A, Puhan MA, Clavien PA. Surgical outcome reporting. Moving from a comic to a tragic opera? *Ann Surg.* (2024) 280(2):248–52. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006226

47. Vergote S, De Bie FR, Duffy JMN, Bosteels J, Benachi A, Power B, et al. Core outcome set for perinatal interventions for congenital diaphragmatic hernia. *Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.* (2023) 62(3):374–82. doi: 10.1002/uog.26235

48. Demirok A, Nagelkerke SCJ, Benninga MA, Köglmeier J, Mutanen A, Arnell H, et al. Development of a core outcome set for pediatric chronic intestinal failure. *JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr.* (2023) 47(3):364–71. doi: 10.1002/jpen.2468

49. Lukas CV, Holmes SK, Cohen AB, Restuccia J, Cramer IE, Shwartz M, et al. Transformational change in health care systems: an organizational model. *Health Care Manage Rev.* (2007) 32(4):309–20. doi: 10.1097/01.HMR.0000296785. 29718.5d

50. Wensing M, Grol R. Knowledge translation in health: how implementation science could contribute more. *BMC Med.* (2019) 17(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1322-9

51. European Commission. *Independent evaluation of European Reference Networks (ERNs) and of Healthcare Providers (HCPs): Final report*. (2024).

52. Spivack O, Gaillard L. ERN CRANIO patient coverage of craniosynostosis in Europe. *Orphanet J Rare Dis.* (2022) 17(1):333. doi: 10.1186/s13023-022-02475-7