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 Insight into Patients’ Experiences of Cancer Care in Taiwan: An Instrument Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 1772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsung-Hsien Yu ◽  
Kuo-Piao Chung ◽  
Yu-Chi Tung ◽  
Hsin-Yun Tsai
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Cultural Adaptation ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Cross Cultural Adaptation ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Experience Survey

Background: Since Taiwan launched the Cancer Prevention Act in 2003, several prevention strategies and early detection programs have been implemented to reduce the incidence, morbidity and mortality rates of cancer. However, most of the programs have concentrated on healthcare providers. Evaluations from the patient’s perspective have been lacking. Thus, in this study a cancer patient experience questionnaire was developed in the Taiwanese context and a preliminary nationwide investigation was conducted on the status of cancer care from the patient’s perspective. Methods: An extensive literature review was first conducted to collect information on the existing instruments used to measure the cancer patient’s experience. Thereafter, a multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to select an optimal instrument based on the IOM’s six domains for evaluating patient-centered care. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) translation procedure was applied to the questionnaire for cross-cultural adaptation. A nationwide field test was then implemented at certificated cancer care hospitals. Results: Fifteen questionnaires were collected for the literature review. The expert panel selected the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey based on the IOM’s recommendations. After cross-cultural translation of the questionnaire, a total of 4000 questionnaires were administered in 19 certificated cancer care hospitals and two major cancer patient associations, with 1010 being returned (25.25% response rate). Most of the respondents were middle-aged, and 70% were female. The respondents reported they had a good experience with cancer care, except for “Home care and support” and “Finding out what was wrong with you”. Stratified analysis was conducted, with the results showing that the cancer patients’ experiences varied depending on their sociodemographic and cancer-related characteristics. Conclusions: A Taiwanese version of the cancer patient experience survey questionnaire was developed. Its results showed that the cancer patient’s experiences varied, depending on the patient’s age, cancer type, and cancer history. This study can be used as a basis to establish a patient-centered care model for cancer care in Taiwan.

Saudi Cancer Patient Experience: Benchmarking a single center report to the United Kingdom National Experience.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14138-e14138
Author(s):  
Hoda Jradi ◽  
Alanood Abdulaziz Alharbi ◽  
Maali Omar Alrashed ◽  
Mishael Ali Alshoaibi ◽  
Mohammad Alkaiyat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Support Groups ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
National Guard ◽  
Information Provision ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Uk

e14138 Background: Diagnosis and treatment of cancer are regarded as stressful experiences impacting the patients and their families. This study aims at comparing the Saudi cancer patient experience with the United Kingdom cancer patient experience throughout their continuum of care. Methods: Results from the United Kingdom (UK) National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (NCPES 2017) were compared to the reported results from the experience of 100 cancer patients for the same year at the National Guard Health affairs Health system in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Similar concepts relating to the experience were investigated and compared. Results: Compared to the UK survey, the Saudi survey had mainly higher score regarding receiving an overall positive cancer care. Scores related to provision of clear answers to all important questions, judging the hospital staff as always working well together, and family members being given the opportunity to communicate with the doctor were significantly higher among Saudis. The UK patient scored significantly higher on receiving information about diagnostic tests, treatment side effects, and discharge instructions, and being informed about support groups and on-going cancer research. Conclusions: The overall experience of the Saudi cancer patients compared favorably to the UK cancer patients; however, in the domain of information provision as an essential part of the cancer experience is still lacking in the Saudi cancer care approach. Quality improvement should focus on the findings of this study for better health outcomes. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Reliability of hospital scores for the Cancer Patient Experience Survey: analysis of publicly reported patient survey data

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. e029037 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary A Abel ◽  
Mayam Gomez-Cano ◽  
Tra My Pham ◽  
Georgios Lyratzopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
High Reliability ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Patient Survey ◽  
Survey Analysis ◽  
Fourfold Increase ◽  
Experience Survey ◽  
Individual Hospital

ObjectivesTo assess the degree to which variations in publicly reported hospital scores arising from the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) are subject to chance.DesignSecondary analysis of publically reported data.SettingEnglish National Health Service hospitals.Participants72 756 patients who were recently treated for cancer in one of 146 hospitals and responded to the 2016 English CPES.Main outcome measuresSpearman-Brown reliability of hospital scores on 51 evaluative questions regarding cancer care.ResultsHospitals varied in respondent sample size with a median hospital sample size of 419 responses (range 31–1972). There were some hospitals with generally highly reliable scores across most questions, whereas other hospitals had generally unreliable scores (the median reliability of question scores within individual hospitals varied between 0.11 and 0.86). Similarly, there were some questions with generally high reliability across most hospitals, whereas other questions had generally low reliability. Of the 7377 individual hospital scores publically reported (146 hospitals by 51 questions, minus 69 suppressed scores), only 34% reached a reliability of 0.7, the minimum generally considered to be useful. In order for 80% of the individual hospital scores to reach a reliability of 0.7, some hospitals would require a fourfold increase in number of respondents; although in a few other hospitals sample sizes could be reduced.ConclusionsThe English Patient Experience Survey represents a globally unique source for understanding experience of a patient with cancer; but in its present form, it is not reliable for high stakes comparisons of the performance of different hospitals. Revised sampling strategies and survey questions could help increase the reliability of hospital scores, and thus make the survey fit for use in performance comparisons.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document