Dataset Information

What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To explore why patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse experiences of care compared with those treated in other English regions. DESIGN:Secondary analysis of the 2011/2012 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n=69 086). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Patients with cancer treated by the English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:64 patient experience measures covering all aspects of cancer care (pre-diagnosis to discharge). METHODS:Using mixed effects logistic regression, we explored whether poorer scores in London hospitals could be explained by patient case-mix (age, gender, ethnicity and cancer type). Because patients referred to tertiary centres and/or with complex medical problems may report more critical experiences, we also explored whether the experiences reported in London may reflect higher concentration of teaching hospitals in the capital. Finally, using the data from the (general) Adult Inpatients Survey, we explored whether the extent of poorer experience reported by London patients was similar for respondents to either survey. RESULTS:For 52/64 questions, there was evidence of poorer experience in London, with the percentage of patients reporting a positive experience being lower compared with the rest of England by a median of 3.7% (IQR 2.5-5.4%). After case-mix adjustment there was still evidence for worse experience in London for 45/64 question [corrected]. In addition, adjusting for teaching hospital status made trivial difference to the case-mix-adjusted findings. There was evidence that London versus rest-of-England differences were greater for patients with cancer compared with (general) hospital inpatients for 10 of 16 questions in both the Cancer Patient Experience and the Adult Inpatients Surveys. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse care experiences and by and large these differences are not explained by patient case-mix or teaching hospital status. Efforts to improve care in London should aim to meet patient expectations and improve care quality.

SUBMITTER: Saunders CL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3902336 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

Saunders Catherine L CL Abel Gary A GA Lyratzopoulos Georgios G

BMJ open 20140103 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To explore why patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse experiences of care compared with those treated in other English regions.<h4>Design</h4>Secondary analysis of the 2011/2012 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n=69 086).<h4>Setting and participants</h4>Patients with cancer treated by the English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>64 patient experience measures covering all aspects of cancer care (pre-diagnosis ...[more]

PMID: 24390383

Similar Datasets

Project description:Exploring variation in patients' experiences of involvement in treatment decision making can identify groups needing extra support, such as additional consultation time, when considering treatment options.We analysed data from the 2010 English National Cancer Patient Experience Survey, a national survey of all patients attending hospitals in England for cancer treatment over a 3-month period, to examine how experience of involvement in decisions about treatment varied between patients with 38 different primary cancers using logistic regression. We analysed responses from 41?411 patients to a single question examining patient experience of involvement in treatment decision making. We calculated unadjusted odds ratios of reporting the most positive experience between patients of different sociodemographic and tumour characteristics and explored the effects of adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation, cancer type and hospital of treatment.Of the 41?441 respondents, 29?776 (72%) reported positive experiences of decision-making involvement. Younger patients reported substantially less positive experiences of involvement in decision making (adjusted OR=0.49 16-24 vs 65-74; P<0.001), as did ethnic minorities (adjusted ORs=0.52, 0.62 and 0.73 for Black, Chinese and Asian vs White patients, respectively; P<0.001). Experience varied considerably between patients with different cancers ( e.g., OR=0.52 for anal and 1.37 for melanoma vs colon cancer; P<0.001), with ovarian, myeloma, bladder and rectal cancer patients reporting substantially worse experiences compared with other patients with gynaecological, haematological, urological and colorectal cancers, respectively. Clustering of different patient groups within hospitals with outlying performance report scores could not account for observed differences.Efforts to improve involvement in treatment decision making can focus on those who report the worst experience, in particular younger patients, ethnic minorities and patients with rectal, ovarian, multiple myeloma and bladder cancer.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient surveys typically have variable response rates between organizations, leading to concerns that such differences may affect the validity of performance comparisons. OBJECTIVE:To explore the size and likely sources of associations between hospital-level survey response rates and patient experience. RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND MEASURES:Cross-sectional mail survey including 60 patient experience items sent to 101,771 cancer survivors recently treated by 158 English NHS hospitals. Age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, clinical diagnosis, hospital type, and region were available for respondents and nonrespondents. RESULTS:The overall response rate was 67% (range, 39% to 77% between hospitals). Hospitals with higher response rates had higher scores for all items (Spearman correlation range, 0.03-0.44), particularly questions regarding hospital-level administrative processes, for example, procedure cancellations or medical note availability.From multivariable analysis, associations between individual patient experience and hospital-level response rates were statistically significant (P<0.05) for 53/59 analyzed questions, decreasing to 37/59 after adjusting for case-mix, and 25/59 after further adjusting for hospital-level characteristics.Predicting responses of nonrespondents, and re-estimating hypothetical hospital scores assuming a 100% response rate, we found that currently low performing hospitals would have attained even lower scores. Overall nationwide attainment would have decreased slightly to that currently observed. CONCLUSIONS:Higher response rate hospitals have more positive experience scores, and this is only partly explained by patient case-mix. High response rates may be a marker of efficient hospital administration, and higher quality that should not, therefore, be adjusted away in public reporting. Although nonresponse may result in slightly overestimating overall national levels of performance, it does not appear to meaningfully bias comparisons of case-mix-adjusted hospital results.

Project description:To describe the accuracy of ethnicity coding in contemporary National Health Service (NHS) hospital records compared with the 'gold standard' of self-reported ethnicity.Secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional survey (2011).All NHS hospitals in England providing cancer treatment.58 721 patients with cancer for whom ethnicity information (Office for National Statistics 2001 16-group classification) was available from self-reports (considered to represent the 'gold standard') and their hospital record.We calculated the sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of hospital record ethnicity. Further, we used a logistic regression model to explore independent predictors of discordance between recorded and self-reported ethnicity.Overall, 4.9% (4.7-5.1%) of people had their self-reported ethnic group incorrectly recorded in their hospital records. Recorded White British ethnicity had high sensitivity (97.8% (97.7-98.0%)) and PPV (98.1% (98.0-98.2%)) for self-reported White British ethnicity. Recorded ethnicity information for the 15 other ethnic groups was substantially less accurate with 41.2% (39.7-42.7%) incorrect. Recorded 'Mixed' ethnicity had low sensitivity (12-31%) and PPVs (12-42%). Recorded 'Indian', 'Chinese', 'Black-Caribbean' and 'Black African' ethnic groups had intermediate levels of sensitivity (65-80%) and PPV (80-89%, respectively). In multivariable analysis, belonging to an ethnic minority group was the only independent predictor of discordant ethnicity information. There was strong evidence that the degree of discordance of ethnicity information varied substantially between different hospitals (p<0.0001).Current levels of accuracy of ethnicity information in NHS hospital records support valid profiling of White/non-White ethnic differences. However, profiling of ethnic differences in process or outcome measures for specific minority groups may contain a substantial and variable degree of misclassification error. These considerations should be taken into account when interpreting ethnic variation audits based on routine data and inform initiatives aimed at improving the accuracy of ethnicity information in hospital records.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To analyse free-text responses from the first Scottish Cancer Patient Experience Survey (SCPES) to understand patients' experiences of care, identify valued aspects and areas for improvement. DESIGN:Inductive thematic analysis of seven free-text comment boxes covering all stages of the cancer experience, from a national cohort survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Adult cancer patients diagnosed across all Health Boards in Scotland between July 2013 and March 2014, and who had an inpatient stay or hospital visit between January and September 2014. 2663 respondents (of n=4835?survey respondents) provided 6961 free-text comments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Positive and negative themes of patients' experiences. Differences in the proportion of positive to negative comments by demographics. METHODS:Data were analysed as follows: (1) comments were initially categorised at a high level (eg, positive, negative, miscellaneous, etc); (2) inductive codes were derived and applied to all relevant comments; (3) codes sharing similar meaning were amalgamated into subthemes, and code frequencies were measured; (4) subthemes were mapped into overarching themes; (5) difference in the proportion of positive to negative comments by demographics were analysed using ?2 tests. RESULTS:Participants made more positive than negative comments (1:0.78). Analysis highlighted the importance to patients of Feeling that Individual Needs Are Met and Feeling Confident Within the System. Comments also provided insight into how Processes and Structures within the system of care can negatively impact on patients' experience. Particular issues were identified with care experiences in the lead-up to diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS:This analysis provides a detailed understanding of patients' cancer care experiences, therefore indicating what aspects matter in those experiences. Although the majority of comments were positive, there were a significant number of negative comments, especially about the lead-up to diagnosis. Comments suggest patients would value greater integration of care from services involved in their treatment for cancer.

Project description:BackgroundPatient experience surveys are important tools for improving the quality of cancer services, but the representativeness of responders is a concern. Increasingly, patient surveys that traditionally used postal questionnaires are incorporating an online response option. However, the characteristics and experience ratings of online responders are poorly understood.ObjectiveWe sought to examine predictors of postal or online response mode, and associations with patient experience in the (English) Cancer Patient Experience Survey.MethodsWe analyzed data from 71,186 patients with cancer recently treated in National Health Service hospitals who responded to the Cancer Patient Experience Survey 2015. Using logistic regression, we explored patient characteristics associated with greater probability of online response and whether, after adjustment for patient characteristics, the online response was associated with a more or less critical evaluation of cancer care compared to the postal response.ResultsOf the 63,134 patients included in the analysis, 4635 (7.34%) responded online. In an adjusted analysis, male (women vs men: odds ratio [OR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.54), younger (<55 vs 65-74 years: OR 3.49, 95% CI 3.21-3.80), least deprived (most vs least deprived quintile: OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.51-0.64), and nonwhite (nonwhite vs white ethnic group: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.24-1.51) patients were more likely to respond online. Compared to postal responders, after adjustment for patient characteristics, online responders had a higher likelihood of reporting an overall satisfied experience of care (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.16-1.32). For 34 of 49 other items, online responders more frequently reported a less than positive experience of care (8 reached statistical significance), and the associations were positive for the remaining 15 of 49 items (2 reached statistical significance).ConclusionsIn the context of a national survey of patients with cancer, online and postal responders tend to differ in their characteristics and rating of satisfaction. Associations between online response and reported experience were generally small and mostly nonsignificant, but with a tendency toward less than positive ratings, although not consistently. Whether the observed associations between response mode and reported experience were causal needs to be examined using experimental survey designs.

Dataset Information

What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

Publications

What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets