Background: Using insights gained from the National Health Service in England, an alliance of organizations committed to cancer control in Australia conducted a large-scale survey aimed at better understanding the quality of cancer care. Aims: To understand sources of variation in the quality of patients' experiences of cancer care; and to identify patients with the largest potential to benefit from strategic quality improvement initiatives. Methods: The Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre commissioned a cross-sectional survey of adult cancer patients treated as day cases or inpatients at five partner health services in 2015. Data comprised responses to the National Health Service (NHS) Cancer Patient Experiences Survey, ICD-10-AM codes and postcodes. Some survey items were modified to suit the Australian population based on advice from local experts and consumers. Aspects of care covered by the survey included: timeliness and experience of diagnosis; treatment decision-making; provision of support information; experience of operations, hospital doctors, ward nurses, hospital care and home care and support; experience of care as a day or outpatient; follow-up care with general practitioners; and overall cancer care. Consistent with NHS methodology, cancer care questions were recoded to binary variables reflecting more or less positive experiences and cancer type was defined based on ICD-10-AM codes. Postcodes were converted to an index of relative socioeconomic advantage and disadvantage using an Australian standard. Proportions were used to summarize the characteristics of patients who had more and less positive experiences of cancer care; then, logistic regression was used to model the probability of having less positive experiences. Age, gender, language spoken at home, socioeconomic group and cancer type were included in the models. Univariate models were used to calculate unadjusted odds ratios. Multivariate models were used to calculate the odds ratios of less positive experiences adjusting for patient characteristics and cancer type. Results: A total of 2526 patients completed the survey (response rate: 41%). As a general rule, and consistent with findings from the NHS, a substantial majority of patients (80% or more) reported positively on many aspects of care. Even so, more often than not aggregated data obscured striking disparities between patients diagnosed with different types of cancers. Overall, patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer fared the worst; more than half reported less favorably on multiple aspects of care. Variation in perceptions of care was not as pronounced for different age groups, genders and language groups and we identified little variation between socioeconomic groups. Conclusion: At the very least, cancer system performance should be appraised by cancer type. Aggregation may conceal gross inequities and thwart attempts to identify those patients most likely to benefit from targeted service improvements.
A closer look at how managerial support can help improve patient experience: Insights from the UK’s National Health Service
