scholarly journals The underlying structure of the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey: Factor analysis to support survey reporting and design

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayam Gomez‐Cano ◽  
Georgios Lyratzopoulos ◽  
John L. Campbell ◽  
Marc Elliott ◽  
Gary Abel
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Underlying Structure ◽  
Experience Survey

scholarly journals The cancer care experiences of gay, lesbian and bisexual patients: A secondary analysis of data from the UK Cancer Patient Experience Survey

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. e12670 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. J. Hulbert-Williams ◽  
C.O. Plumpton ◽  
P. Flowers ◽  
R. McHugh ◽  
R.D. Neal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
And Bisexual ◽  
Experience Survey ◽  
The Uk

scholarly journals Patient Experience Drivers of Overall Satisfaction With Care in Cancer Patients: Evidence From Responders to the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 758-765
Author(s):  
Mayam Gomez-Cano ◽  
Georgios Lyratzopoulos ◽  
Gary A Abel
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Treatment Pathways ◽  
Care Experience ◽  
Experience Of Care ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Experience Survey ◽  
Core Questions

Background: Surveys collecting patient experience data often contain a large number of items covering a wide range of experiences. Knowing which areas to prioritize for improvements efforts can be difficult. Objective: To examine which aspects of care experience are the key drivers of overall satisfaction with cancer care. Methods: Secondary analysis of the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. Logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between overall satisfaction and 10 core questions covering aspects of experience applicable to all patients. Supplementary analyses examined a further 16 questions applying only to patients in certain groups or on specific treatment pathways. Results: Of 68 340 included patients, 58 697 (86%) rated overall satisfaction highly (8 or more out of 10). The strongest predictors of overall satisfaction across all models were responses to 2 questions on experience of care administration and care coordination (odds ratio [OR] = 2.11, 95% confidence interval [95% CI = 2.05-2.17, P < .0001; OR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.97-2.09, P < .0001, respectively, per 1 standard deviation change). Conclusion: Focusing improvement efforts on care administration and coordination has potential to improve overall satisfaction with oncological care across diverse patient groups/care pathways.

scholarly journals How do patients with malignant brain tumors experience general practice care and support? Qualitative analysis of English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) data

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-319
Author(s):  
Isabell Fraulob ◽  
Elizabeth A Davies
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Brain Cancer ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Care And Support ◽  
Experience Survey ◽  
General Practice Care ◽  
Practice Care

Abstract Background English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) data show patients with brain cancer report the least-positive experiences of general practice support. We aimed to understand these findings by identifying the issues described in qualitative survey feedback and suggest how care may be improved. Methods We reviewed 2699 qualitative comments made to open questions about what was good or might be improved about National Health Service care between 2010 and 2014. We identified 84 (3%) specific comments about general practice care and used open coding and framework analysis to develop a thematic framework. Results We identified 3 key themes and 12 subthemes: first, the experience of initial diagnosis by a general practitioner (GP), including apparent complexity of making the diagnosis, apparent slowness in referral for investigation, referral made by patient or family, delay in receiving scan results, and whether the GP quickly identified the problem and referred to a specialist; second, the experience of care and support from the general practice, including lack of supportive response from the GP, lack of follow-up care from the GP, lack of family involvement by the GP, lack of GP knowledge about management, and whether the GP responded in a supportive way to the diagnosis; and third, the experience of overall coordination in care, including lack of communication between the hospital and general practice and good communication about the care plan. Conclusion Qualitative responses from patients with brain cancer reveal their needs for better emotional and practical support within primary care. Suggestions include increasing the speed of initial referral for investigation, the depth of discussion about diagnostic difficulties, and developing coordinated care plans with cancer centers.

scholarly journals Linking the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey to Cancer registration: relating patient experience to outcomes, a step towards better services and outcomes

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabella Gomes Carneiro ◽  
James Charnock ◽  
Anna Fry ◽  
Vivian Mak ◽  
Nick Ormiston-Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Cancer Registration ◽  
Registration Data ◽  
Cancer Support ◽  
Diagnosis Codes ◽  
Experience Survey ◽  
Analysis System ◽  
First Time ◽  
Multiple Tumour

ABSTRACT ObjectivesTo link the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) to Public Health England’s cancer registration records and allow new exploration of the association between patient experience and outcomes and eventually improve service provision and patient outcomes. ApproachPatients’ responses from the first 4 waves (2010, 2011/12, 2013, 2014) of CPES were linked to tumour level cancer registration records. Cancer registration is available via the Cancer Analysis System (CAS). A patient may have multiple tumour records in CAS. Therefore, the same CPES survey result could be mapped onto multiple tumour records in the cancer registration data. It was necessary to match the patient records to identify the tumour records in CAS that most likely corresponded to the correct CPES response. The following criteria were used to match records at patient-tumour level: a match in the ICD-10 diagnosis codes from both datasets; and the time frames from diagnosis to discharge to best assess the correct match. In order to increase the matching yield, the linkage also flagged related tumour types in the two datasets, following consultation with clinical and research experts in the field. ResultsOver 75% of records in the survey cohort were successfully linked for each year of the survey waves. Analysis based on concordance between data items in both CPES and cancer registrations were mostly the same in the two datasets. As an example of the linkage potential, the overall experience of patient care was compared with stage at diagnosis. The results show that patients diagnosed at later stages have significantly lower scores of overall care. To our knowledge, this is the first time these two variables have been analysed together in regards to the care of cancer patients in England and emphasise the need for earlier cancer diagnosis. ConclusionThis is the first time the CPES has been linked to cancer registrations. The new linkage provides insight into how well represented the overall cancer patient population is within CPES and also assess concordance of data between them. This work is essential to support a programme of further analysis at NCRAS, in partnership with Macmillan Cancer Support and Cancer Research UK.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document