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

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.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (32) ◽  
pp. 3654-3661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine L. Saunders ◽  
Catherine Meads ◽  
Gary A. Abel ◽  
Georgios Lyratzopoulos

Purpose To address gaps in evidence on the risk of cancer in people from sexual minorities. Patients and Methods We used data from 796,594 population-based English General Practice Patient Survey responders to explore the prevalence of self-reported diagnoses of cancer in the last 5 years among sexual minorities compared with heterosexual women and men. We analyzed data from 249,010 hospital-based English Cancer Patient Experience Survey responders with sexual orientation as a binary outcome, and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth, Revision, diagnosis as covariate—38 different common and rarer cancers, with breast and prostate cancer as baseline categories for women and men, respectively—to examine whether people from sexual minorities are over- or under-represented among different cancer sites. For both analyses, we used logistic regression, stratified by sex and adjusted for age. Results A diagnosis of cancer in the past 5 years was more commonly reported by male General Practice Patient Survey responders who endorsed gay or bisexual orientation compared with heterosexual men (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.49; P < .001) without evidence of a difference between lesbian or bisexual compared with heterosexual women (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.37; P = .19). For most common and rarer cancer sites (30 of 33 in women, 28 of 32 in men), the odds of specific cancer site diagnosis among Cancer Patient Experience Survey respondents seemed to be independent of sexual orientation; however, there were notable differences in infection-related (HIV and human papillomavirus [HPV]) cancers. Gay or bisexual men were over-represented among men with Kaposi’s sarcoma (OR, 48.2; 95% CI, 22.0 to 105.6), anal (OR, 15.5; 95% CI, 11.0 to 21.9), and penile cancer (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.9 to 3.7). Lesbian or bisexual women were over-represented among women with oropharyngeal cancer (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0). Conclusion Large-scale evidence indicates that the distribution of cancer sites does not vary substantially by sexual orientation, with the exception of some HPV- and HIV-associated cancers. These findings highlight the importance of HPV vaccination in heterosexual and sexual minority populations.


2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. e12670 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. J. Hulbert-Williams ◽  
C.O. Plumpton ◽  
P. Flowers ◽  
R. McHugh ◽  
R.D. Neal ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 758-765
Author(s):  
Mayam Gomez-Cano ◽  
Georgios Lyratzopoulos ◽  
Gary A Abel

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.


2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akuh Adaji ◽  
Peter Schattner ◽  
Kay Margaret Jones ◽  
Bronwyn Beovich ◽  
Leon Piterman

Objective. To test the association, in patients with a diagnosis of diabetes I and II, between having or not having a care plan, (i.e. General Practice Management Plans (GPMPs),Team Care Arrangements (TCAs)), and having the recommended number of biochemical checks according to the diabetes Annual Cycle of Care guideline. The checks comprised HbA1c, HDL cholesterol and urinary microalbumin. Methods. Chi-square analysis of retrospective group data obtained from the Medicare database (from ‘billing’ patterns only). Results. The creation of GPMPs was associated with general practitioners (GPs) requesting checks for HbA1c (59.7%), HDL cholesterol (36.9%) and microalbumin (50.8%) for diabetes patients in accordance with guideline recommendations. Although the introduction of multidisciplinary care via a TCA was associated with an increase in the frequency of HbA1c checks (61.3%) in accordance with the guidelines, there was a reduction in the number of HDL cholesterol (23.7%) and microalbumin (36.8%) checks. The group with no care plans had the lowest association with HbA1c (47.8%), HDL cholesterol (19.7%) and microalbumin (29.3%) checks that met guideline requirements for diabetes. Conclusions. The use of GPMPs showed strong association with increased testing of process measures that met guideline requirements for diabetes. Further research is needed to understand the value and benefits of TCAs in promoting adherence to diabetes guidelines. What is known about the topic? Research suggests that care planning is associated with increased adherence by GPs to some of the processes of care stipulated in diabetes guidelines. What does the paper add? This study examines Australia-wide data obtained from Medicare. The findings demonstrated strong association between care planning and the process measures examined in this study. In contrast to previous studies, multidisciplinary team involvement via a TCA appeared to be less important than a GPMP in promoting adherence to process measures. What are the implications for practitioners? GPs should continue to provide structure care to patients via General Practice Management Plans.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document