scholarly journals A patient-centric approach to improving experience in urological cancer care

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 39-46
Author(s):  
Kelsey Flott ◽  
Luke Hounsome ◽  
Sabine Vuik ◽  
Ara Darzi ◽  
Erik Mayer
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Patient Population ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Urological Cancer ◽  
Cluster Membership ◽  
Patient Centric

Rationale: Patient experience data are often reported at the provider level rather than the patient level, meaning that providers receive an aggregate score of all patient experience scores across their service. This inflates positivity and makes it difficult for providers to use patient experience scores to tailor improvements for patients within specific sites, wards or pathways. Patients have different priorities for their urological cancer care experience, and improvement programmes should take these differences into account. A more granular understanding of different patterns of patient experience will allow health care providers to focus their improvement strategies differently based on the needs of the patient groups that utilise their services. Objective: This study examines what groups exist within the urological cancer patient population, and what are their respective priorities for patient experience improvement. Methods: Using urological cancers as a case study, this paper uses data from the UK National Cancer Patient Experience Survey to segment the patient population based on their scores for 14 domains of experience. TwoStep cluster analyses were carried out on two groups of survey respondents: those who had an operation and those who did not. These analyses identified previously unknown clusters within the two populations. Profiles were created for each cluster based on a series of demographic variables, and a regression analysis was conducted to assess the significance of each demographic variable in determining cluster membership. Results: The TwoStep analysis yielded three clusters for both the operations and non-operations groups based on how patients experienced care: Positive, Middling and Negative. Gender, age, cancer type and income significantly influenced cluster membership: women, younger and more deprived patients were more prevalent in the Negative experience cluster. Conclusion: This more nuanced understanding of the patient population and the variation in their priorities for patient experience improvement is the first step to more patient-centric improvement. It will allow services to make more meaningful and individualised changes based on the voices of patients. This is a proof of concept that can be applied broadly in health care to more effectively deliver on the patient-centred agenda.

Survey to evaluate quality of cancer patient care: A questionnaire based analysis in a tertiary hospital.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18320-e18320
Author(s):  
Haritha Ackula ◽  
Ying Ning ◽  
Vishal Jindal ◽  
Shekhar Patil ◽  
Ahmad Daniyal Siddiqui
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Inpatient Service ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Goals Of Care ◽  
Effective Care

e18320 Background: As the burden of cancer is on the rise, there is a need to understand the logistics in caring for cancer patients. Internists and nurses are integral part of cancer care team, alongside oncologists. Our aim was to assess their knowledge, attitude and practice in order to identify areas of strength and limitation to help devise opportunities to enhance care. Methods: A close ended cross-sectional survey was conducted among internal medicine physicians, residents and nurses. We developed 36 questions broadly based on cancer-care and distributed them randomly. Additionally, subjects were asked to list factors limiting their ability to provide effective care. We semi quantitatively graded the depth of awareness amongst participants. A total of 95 health care providers were included in the final analysis. Results: Only 62% of participants were accurate in knowledge based questions. About 57% believed all cancer patients benefit from less aggressive treatment and considered chemotherapy side-effects to be the most common cause of hospitalization. Total of 94% reported effective care coordination by visiting nurses, primary care providers in outpatient settings decrease readmissions. Seventy percent thought a dedicated inpatient service run by Oncologists would be better for cancer patient care, with 96% preferring co-management. Around 80% felt they were better able to manage decompensated heart failure and fulminant liver disease than oncological emergencies like neutropenic fever. All the attendings (100%) were comfortable discussing new cancer diagnosis compared to 65% residents and 60% nurses. However 58% of them would like the health care proxy to be involved in all goals of care decisions, irrespective of patient’s capacity. Conclusions: Surprisingly, the baseline knowledge about cancer-care is suboptimal and there is a significant gap in expected versus real cancer-care delivery. Most commonly encountered factors hindering patient-care were lack of awareness of cancer illness trajectories and unclear goals of care with inter-provider disparities/gaps in understanding them. Initiatives such as targeted education, shared care plan and engaging patients at every step is crucial.

scholarly journals Measuring health care experiences that matter to Indigenous people in Australia with cancer: identifying critical gaps in existing tools

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Green ◽  
Joan Cunningham ◽  
Kate Anderson ◽  
Kalinda Griffiths ◽  
Gail Garvey
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Indigenous People ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Cultural Safety ◽  
Service Improvement ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Indigenous Worldview ◽  
Critical Aspects

Abstract Background Measurement of patients’ healthcare experiences is increasingly used as an indicator of quality of care, but there are concerns that existing measures omit information that is meaningful to patients and that results may not be used systematically to inform service improvement. Further, current approaches may be inadequate for some population groups, such as Indigenous people in Australia, whose healthcare experience is impacted by the context of colonisation and discordance between Indigenous understandings of health and the Western biomedical health system. This study aimed to assess the extent to which existing patient experience measures used in Australia collect information about critical aspects of cancer care, as previously identified by Indigenous people affected by cancer and their health care providers. Methods A two-stage process was used to examine the adequacy of existing patient experience measures for Indigenous people in Australia: (1) relevant tools and measures were identified and assessed, and four measures selected as suitable comparators; (2) comparators were examined in detail and mapped against topics identified in earlier research as important to Indigenous people with cancer. Gaps in topic coverage in comparators were identified. Results No comparators completely captured the critical aspects of cancer care identified by Indigenous people affected by cancer and their health care providers. The number of topics ‘partially’ captured by the four comparators ranged from 4 to 7 out of 9. While most topics were partially covered, the lack of questions around culture and cultural safety was notable. Conclusions Existing tools are likely to miss key aspects of Indigenous peoples’ experiences of cancer care in Australia. Failure to adequately assess care experiences related to cultural safety may compromise efforts to improve health outcomes. Addressing gaps requires development of experience measures that are strengths-based, reflect an Indigenous worldview and measure aspects of experience relevant to Indigenous people.

scholarly journals Measuring Health Care Experiences that Matter to Indigenous People in Australia with Cancer: Identifying Critical Gaps in Existing Tools

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Green ◽  
Joan Cunningham ◽  
Kate Anderson ◽  
Kalinda Griffiths ◽  
Gail Garvey
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Indigenous People ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
World View ◽  
Cultural Safety ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Experience ◽  
Critical Aspects

Abstract Background: The measurement of patients’ experiences of healthcare is increasingly used as an indicator of the quality of care. There are concerns that many mechanisms used to collect patient experience data produce large amounts of superficial data, while missing deeper, more nuanced information that is meaningful to the patient, and that insufficient attention is paid to whether the information is used to make a difference to health care. This is particularly so for Indigenous people in Australia, whose health care experience is impacted by the context of colonisation and discordance between Indigenous understandings of health and the biomedical health system. The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which existing patient experience measures currently in use in Australia collect information about the most critical aspects of cancer care, as identified by Indigenous people affected by cancer and their health care providers in previous research. Methods: A two-stage process was used to examine the adequacy of existing patient experience measures for Indigenous people in Australia: (1) relevant tools and measures were identified and assessed, and four measures were selected as suitable comparators; (2) the comparators were examined in detail and mapped against the topics identified in our earlier research as important to Indigenous people affected by cancer. Gaps in topic coverage in the comparators were identified. Results: No comparators completely captured the critical aspects of cancer care identified by Indigenous people with cancer and their health care providers. The number of topics ‘partially’ captured by the four comparators ranged from 4 to 7 out of 9. While most topics were at least partially covered, the lack of questions around culture and cultural safety was notable. Conclusions: Existing patient experience measurement tools are likely to miss some key aspects of Indigenous peoples’ experiences of cancer care in Australia. Failure to adequately assess experiences of care related to cultural safety may compromise efforts to improve health outcomes. Addressing the gaps requires the development of experience measures that are strengths-based, reflect an Indigenous world view and measure aspects of experience that are relevant to Indigenous people.

scholarly journals An Insider View of the Cancer Radiation Experience Through the Eyes of a Cancer Patient

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvie Leotin
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Experience Design ◽  
Treatment Experience ◽  
Cancer Experience ◽  
Oncology Providers

While oncology providers see and treat thousands of cancer patients every year, few have had cancer themselves, or know what’s it like to be in the shoes of a cancer patient days in and days out. This article written by a cancer survivor, writer, and experience design consultant lifts the lid on the cancer patient experience, for the benefit of noncancer patients. Through visual imageries, the author helps oncology providers and caregivers visualize and realize the vulnerability of the cancer experience and discover the treatment experience through new eyes. The article reveals emotional, mental, and somatic stressors, which add stress and/or trauma to the treatment experience and have been largely overlooked by health-care providers.

scholarly journals Measuring health care experiences that matter to Indigenous people in Australia with cancer: identifying critical gaps in existing tools

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Green ◽  
Joan Cunningham ◽  
Kate Anderson ◽  
Kalinda Griffiths ◽  
Gail Garvey
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Indigenous People ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Cultural Safety ◽  
Service Improvement ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Indigenous Worldview ◽  
Critical Aspects

Abstract Background: Measurement of patients’ healthcare experiences is increasingly used as an indicator of quality of care, but there are concerns that existing measures omit information that is meaningful to patients and that results may not be used systematically to inform service improvement. Further, current approaches may be inadequate for some population groups, such as Indigenous people in Australia, whose healthcare experience is impacted by the context of colonisation and discordance between Indigenous understandings of health and the Western biomedical health system. This study aimed to assess the extent to which existing patient experience measures used in Australia collect information about critical aspects of cancer care, as previously identified by Indigenous people affected by cancer and their health care providers.Methods: A two-stage process was used to examine the adequacy of existing patient experience measures for Indigenous people in Australia: (1) relevant tools and measures were identified and assessed, and four measures selected as suitable comparators; (2) comparators were examined in detail and mapped against topics identified in earlier research as important to Indigenous people with cancer. Gaps in topic coverage in comparators were identified. Results: No comparators completely captured the critical aspects of cancer care identified by Indigenous people affected by cancer and their health care providers. The number of topics ‘partially’ captured by the four comparators ranged from 4 to 7 out of 9. While most topics were partially covered, the lack of questions around culture and cultural safety was notable. Conclusions: Existing tools are likely to miss key aspects of Indigenous peoples’ experiences of cancer care in Australia. Failure to adequately assess care experiences related to cultural safety may compromise efforts to improve health outcomes. Addressing gaps requires development of experience measures that are strengths-based, reflect an Indigenous worldview and measure aspects of experience relevant to Indigenous people.

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 Building an oncology community of practice to improve cancer care

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Fingrut ◽  
L. A. Beck ◽  
D. Lo
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Standards Of Practice ◽  
Barriers To Access ◽  
Multidisciplinary Meetings ◽  
Knowledge Of Cancer ◽  
Effective Models

Background Communities of practice (cops) have been shown to be effective models for achieving quality outcomes in health care.Objective Here, we describe the application of the cop model to the Canadian oncology context.Methods We established an oncology cop at our urban community hospital and its networks. Goals were to decrease barriers to access, foster collaboration, and improve knowledge of guidelines in cancer care. We hosted 6 in-person multidisciplinary meetings, focusing on screening, diagnosis, and management of common solid tumours. Health care providers affiliated with our hospital were invited to attend and to complete post-meeting surveys. Likert scales assessed whether cop goals were realized.Results Meetings attracted a mean of 57 attendees (range: 48–65 attendees), with a mean of 84% completing the surveys and consenting to the analysis. Attendees included family physicians (mean: 41%), specialist physicians (mean: 24%), nurses (mean: 10%), and allied health care providers (mean: 22%). Repeat attendance increased during the series, with 85% of attendees at the final meeting having attended 1 or more prior meetings. Across the series, most participants agreed or strongly agreed that the cop reduced barriers (mean: 76.0% ± 7.9%) and improved access to cancer care services (mean: 82.4% ± 8.1%) and subject matter experts (mean: 91.7% ± 4.2%); fostered teamwork (mean: 84.5% ± 6.8%) and a culture of collaboration (mean: 94.8% ± 4.2%); improved knowledge of cancer care services (mean: 93.3% ± 4.8%), standards of practice (mean: 92.3% ± 3.1%), and quality indicators (mean: 77.5% ± 6.3%); and improved cancer-related practice (mean: 88.8% ± 4.6%) and satisfaction in caring for cancer patients (mean: 82.9% ± 6.8%). Participant feedback carried a potential for bias.Conclusions We demonstrated the feasibility of oncology cops and found that participants perceived their value in reducing barriers to access, fostering collaboration, and improving knowledge of guidelines in cancer care.

scholarly journals Impact of Treatments on the Family of Breast, Prostate, Colon and Lung Cancer Patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 61
Author(s):  
Philippe Groux ◽  
Sandro Anchisi ◽  
Thomas Szucs
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Private Practice ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Cancer Treatments ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
The Family

Objective: Many patients describe travel to cancer treatment as inconvenient and a practical hardship and it may be perceived or experienced as a barrier to treatment. We investigated which impact cancer treatments has on the family of the patients, especially for the most frequent cancer type prostate, breast, colon and lung cancer.The aim was to identify groups of patients with an increased burden for the family.Method: All patients coming in February 2012 for chemotherapy to one of the four centres of the hospital or to the unique private practice were asked to answer a survey. The questionnaire covered items as gender, date of birth, living place, kind of cancer, kind of treatment and questions covering different aspects of the travel: how the patient travelled to the centre, how long the travel lasted, which kind of support was necessary to travel and who provided this support, whether the accompanying person had to absent herself from her workplace, whether the patient lives alone or not and how many journeys to health care providers the patients had in the last month were included in the analysisResults: 298 patients answered to all required questions (73%). 186 came accompanied, a vast majority by a member of the family and one out of four of the accompanying person had to leave the workplace. Help at home is almost exclusively provided by family members. Patients have several journeys to health care providers per month.Conclusions: The type of cancer has an impact on the support needed and must added to the previously published factors as age, gender and distance. The journey to the cancer treatment is not the unique journey to health care providers the patients have and increase the burden for the patient and the family.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document