A review and characterization of the various perceptions of quality cancer care

A long-term retrospective observational study at a medium-sized medical oncology service in Switzerland: comparison of overall survival with a national cohort and adherence to treatment guidelines

AIMS

There is a lack of national and international publicly available long-term survival outcome data from individual healthcare providers in medical oncology. In this study, the overall survival at a medium-sized medical oncology service at Olten Cantonal Hospital was evaluated and compared as a local benchmark report with national data from the Swiss Cancer Registries. Furthermore, adherence to treatment guidelines was investigated as an additional quality indicator.

METHODS

The 1- and 5-year overall survival of all patients with breast cancer, testicular cancer, colon cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, Hodgkin lymphoma, and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in Switzerland from 2008 to 2017 with at least one outpatient visit at the in-house medical oncology service at Olten Cantonal Hospital was analysed and compared with the specific overall population-based outcome data provided by the National Agency for Cancer Registration (NACR), which were set as a national benchmark. Until 2020, no data from the Canton of Solothurn, to which Olten belongs, were reported to the NACR. Further, adherence to internationally recognized clinical guidelines for stage-specific treatment was assessed.

RESULTS

Until September 8, 2020, data on 842 patients with a median follow-up period of 70 months were collected and analysed. The 1- and 5-year overall survival for colon and non-small cell cancer, Hodgkin lymphoma, and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and the 5-year overall survival for testicular cancer in the Olten cohort did not significantly differ from the NACR data. The 1-year overall survival for testicular cancer was not comparable statistically. The 5-year overall survival for breast cancer (unadjusted for stage) was significantly higher in the NACR collective (84.5%) than in the Olten collective (79.7%) but not for the individual breast cancer stages. The Olten collective included approximately 2.5 times as many patients with stage 4 breast cancer (17.5%) as the NACR collective (6.9%). Approximately 92.4% of the patients in the curative setting and 85.8% of the patients in the palliative setting received first-line treatment according to guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The statistically comparable local 1- and 5-year overall survival of the analysed malignancies, with adjustment for stage for the 5-year overall survival for breast cancer, is in line with the national benchmark. Adherence to treatment guidelines is high.

A randomized patient education trial investigating treatment-related distress and satisfaction with the use of an at-home gynecologic brachytherapy educational video

BACKGROUND

Physician explanation of gynecologic brachytherapy can be overwhelming or induce patient anxiety, and may be time-constrained given clinical limitations. We report the first randomized trial of an educational video intervention in gynecologic brachytherapy on patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

Between February 2020 and January 2022, 80 gynecologic cancer patients prescribed brachytherapy were randomly assigned to either standard informed consent (Arm A) or a supplemental 16 min brachytherapy educational video (https://vimeo.com/403385455/d0716e3cc8) via the internet (Arm B). Primary outcome was treatment-related distress (National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) distress scale scored 0 (no distress) to 10 (maximum distress)). Secondary outcome was patient satisfaction (summated Likert-scale scored 11-55). Surveys were administered at baseline, after first treatment, and prior to brachytherapy completion.

RESULTS

All patients completed the prescribed brachytherapy. In Arm B, 19/40 (48%) patients and 10/40 (25%) patients' family/friends viewed the video. For patients that completed all surveys (Arm A n=29, Arm B n=28), there was no difference between arms in the sociodemographic, clinical, or treatment variables. Distress scores were low at baseline (Arm A median 4, Arm B median 4, p=0.65) and there was no detectable change in distress between arms on surveys 1 and 2 (β 0.36, p=0.67) or surveys 1 and 3 (β -1.02, p=0.29) in multivariable analysis. Satisfaction scores were high at baseline (Arm A median 54, Arm B median 54.5, p=0.64) and there was no detectable change in satisfaction between arms on surveys 1 and 2 (β 0.22, p=0.93) or surveys 1 and 3 (β 0.63, p=0.85) in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients randomized to an educational video tool for gynecologic brachytherapy, approximately 50% of the cohort and 25% of the cohort's family/friends used the video. Overall, patients had low distress scores and high satisfaction scores with no significant differences between the standard and video intervention arms. Further work is needed to understand factors contributing to gynecologic brachytherapy anxiety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04363957.

Stakeholder Perceptions of Key Aspects of High-Quality Cancer Care to Assess with Patient Reported Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

We conducted a review to identify important symptoms reported by patients on questionnaires (e.g., pain) that can be used to compare cancer centers on how well they provide care. For example, cancer centers could be compared on the percentage of patients with controlled pain after adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. Standard review methods were used to identify studies through August 2020. Searches generated 1813 articles and 1779 were coded as not relevant. The remaining 34 studies showed that patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators identify psychosocial care (e.g., distress) and symptom management as critical parts of high-quality care. Patients and caregivers also perceive that maintaining physical function and daily activities are important. Clinicians and healthcare administrators perceive control of specific symptoms to be important (e.g., pain, poor sleep, diarrhea). Results were used to inform testing of symptom questionnaires to compare the quality of care provided by six cancer centers.

Abstract

Performance measurement is the process of collecting, analyzing, and reporting standardized measures of clinical performance that can be compared across practices to evaluate how well care was provided. We conducted a systematic review to identify stakeholder perceptions of key symptoms and health domains to test as patient-reported performance measures in oncology. Stakeholders included cancer patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators. Standard review methodology was used, consistent with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies through August 2020. Four coders independently reviewed entries and conflicts were resolved by a fifth coder. Efficacy and effectiveness studies, and studies focused exclusively on patient experiences of care (e.g., communication skills of providers) were excluded. Searches generated 1813 articles and 1779 were coded as not relevant, leaving 34 international articles for extraction. Patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators prioritize psychosocial care (e.g., distress) and symptom management for patient-reported performance measures. Patients and caregivers also perceive that maintaining physical function and daily activities are critical. Clinicians and administrators perceive control of specific symptoms to be critical (gastrointestinal symptoms, pain, poor sleep). Results were used to inform testing at six US cancer centers.

Experiences of cancer patients with outpatient care in the USA: a population-based study

Aim: To evaluate the patterns of cancer patients-assessed quality of outpatient care in the USA. Materials & methods: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey datasets for the years 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2017 were accessed and adult participants with a history of cancer diagnosis were reviewed. Participants' assessments of different quality indicators of healthcare providers were reviewed. Multivariable logistic regression analysis for factors associated with a better overall rating of healthcare was then conducted. Results: A total of 8050 participants with a history of cancer were included. Within multivariable logistic regression analysis, factors associated with the better rating of healthcare included; older age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.017; 95% CI: 1.010-1.025), higher income OR (OR: 2.385; 95% CI: 1.735-3.277) and better self-reported health status (OR: 6.691; 95% CI: 3.928-11.396). Conclusion: Cancer patients with older age, higher income and better health status were more likely to be satisfied with the outpatient care they received. The biggest area for potential improvement of patient satisfaction seems to be related to the time spent with healthcare providers.

Performance Measures Based on How Adults With Cancer Feel and Function: Stakeholder Recommendations and Feasibility Testing in Six Cancer Centers

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess how patients feel and function have potential for evaluating quality of care. Stakeholder recommendations for PRO-based performance measures (PMs) were elicited, and feasibility testing was conducted at six cancer centers.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with 124 stakeholders to determine priority symptoms and risk adjustment variables for PRO-PMs and perceived acceptability. Stakeholders included patients and advocates, caregivers, clinicians, administrators, and thought leaders. Feasibility testing was conducted in six cancer centers. Patients completed PROMs at home 5-15 days into a chemotherapy cycle. Feasibility was operationalized as ≥ 75% completed PROMs and ≥ 75% patient acceptability.

RESULTS

Stakeholder priority PRO-PMs for systemic therapy were GI symptoms (diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting), depression/anxiety, pain, insomnia, fatigue, dyspnea, physical function, and neuropathy. Recommended risk adjusters included demographics, insurance type, cancer type, comorbidities, emetic risk, and difficulty paying bills. In feasibility testing, 653 patients enrolled (approximately 110 per site), and 607 (93%) completed PROMs, which indicated high feasibility for home collection. The majority of patients (470 of 607; 77%) completed PROMs without a reminder call, and 137 (23%) of 607 completed them after a reminder call. Most patients (72%) completed PROMs through web, 17% paper, or 2% interactive voice response (automated call that verbally asked patient questions). For acceptability, > 95% of patients found PROM items to be easy to understand and complete.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders agree that PMs that are based on how patients feel and function would be an important addition to quality measurement. This study also shows that PRO-PMs can be feasibly captured at home during systemic therapy and are acceptable to patients. PRO-PMs may add value to the portfolio of PMs as oncology transitions from fee-for-service payment models to performance-based care that emphasizes outcome measures.

Prospective, Randomized Control Trial Investigating the Impact of a Physician-Communicated Radiation Therapy Plan Review on Breast Cancer Patient-Reported Satisfaction

PURPOSE

Patients with breast cancer face complex medical decision-making. We investigated the impact of a physician-communicated, patient-specific radiation therapy (RT) plan review on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant RT in a prospective randomized trial.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with stage I-III breast cancer treated with adjuvant RT were prospectively randomized to a standard nondetailed review (Arm A) versus an in-depth, individualized RT plan review during week 1 of RT (Arm B). Plan review included visualization of the treatment plan, RT doses, beam arrangements, normal tissue doses, and dose/volume constraints. Patient-reported satisfaction was assessed using a subset of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Treatment Satisfaction - Patient Satisfaction questionnaire related to physician communication (PC), technical competency (TC), confidence and trust (C&T), and overall satisfaction (OS). The difference in mean scores at baseline, week 1, and the end of RT were assessed.

RESULTS

From March 2014 to March 2016, 64 patients with breast cancer (37 in Arm A; 27 in Arm B) were randomized and completed all 3 surveys. Mean baseline scores for PC, TC, C&T, and OS mean were 2.73 (standard deviation [SD], 0.71), 2.66 (SD, 0.86), 2.56 (SD, 0.98), and 2.27 (SD, 0.88), respectively, with high baseline scores in both arms. There was no difference in baseline-reported communication indicators between the arms. There were no significant differences among the 3 time points for PC, TC, C&T, or OS (P = .63, .53, 0.52, and 0.71, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We report the first randomized trial evaluating the impact of in-depth RT plan review on PROs during breast radiation. Both baseline and postintervention scores were high for all domains. Detailed patient assessment, understanding of communication types, and information processing may be necessary to determine subtle PRO differences. Further investigations of PROs could potentially direct and optimize physician and patient communication during RT.

Perspectives of quality care in cancer treatment: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with cancer annually. There is an increasing demand for high-quality cancer care; however, what constitutes quality care is not well defined. There remains a gap in our knowledge regarding the current perceptions of what defines quality care.

OBJECTIVE

To review the current understanding and perspectives of key stakeholders regarding quality cancer care for adult patients with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy-based treatment regimens.

METHODS

This systematic qualitative literature review involved a search of MEDLINE and PubMed databases for articles that were published between January 2009 and May 2013 using a predefined search strategy with specific Medical Subject Headings terms encompassing 3 core concepts-cancer, chemotherapy, and quality of healthcare. Articles were eligible to be included if they focused on adult cancers, discussed quality indicators of cancer care or quality of care in the article's body, discussed treating cancer with chemotherapy, were conducted in the United States and with US respondents, and reported data about cancer quality that were obtained directly from stakeholders (eg, patients, caregivers, providers, payers, other healthcare professionals). Thematic analyses were conducted to assess the perspectives and the intersection of quality care issues from each stakeholder group that was identified, including patients, providers, and thought leaders.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 542 articles that were reviewed for eligibility. Of these articles, 15 were eligible for inclusion in the study and reported perspectives from a total of 4934 participants. Patients with cancer, as well as providers, noted information needs, psychosocial support, responsibility for care, and coordination of care as important aspects of quality care. Providers also reported the importance of equity in cancer care and reimbursement concerns, whereas patients with cancer considered the timeliness of care an important factor. The perspectives of thought leaders focused on barriers to and facilitators of quality care.

CONCLUSION

Thematic elements related to cancer quality were relatively consistent between patients and providers; no additional information was found regarding payer perspectives. The perspectives of these groups are important to consider as quality initiatives are being developed.

Health service utilization by indigenous cancer patients in Queensland: a descriptive study

INTRODUCTION

Indigenous Australians experience more aggressive cancers and higher cancer mortality rates than other Australians. Cancer patients undergoing treatment are likely to access health services (e.g. social worker, cancer helpline, pain management services). To date Indigenous cancer patients' use of these services is limited. This paper describes the use of health services by Indigenous cancer patients.

METHODS

Indigenous cancer patients receiving treatment were recruited at four major Queensland public hospitals (Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital, Princess Alexandra, Cairns Base Hospital and Townsville Hospital). Participants were invited to complete a structured questionnaire during a face-to-face interview which sought information about their use of community and allied health services.

RESULTS

Of the 157 patients interviewed most were women (54.1%), of Aboriginal descent (73.9%), lived outer regional areas (40.1%) and had a mean age of 52.2 years. The most frequent cancer types were breast cancer (22.3%), blood related (14.0%), lung (12.1%) and gastroenterological (10.8%). More than half of the participants reported using at least one of the 'Indigenous Health Worker/Services' (76.4%), 'Allied Health Workers/Services' (72.6%) and 'Information Sources' (70.7%). Younger participants 19-39 years were more likely to use information sources (81.0%) than older participants who more commonly used community services (48.8%). The cancer patients used a median of three health services groups while receiving cancer treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Indigenous cancer patients used a range of health services whilst receiving treatment. Indigenous Health Workers/Services and Allied Health Workers/Services were the most commonly used services. However, there is a need for further systematic investigation into the health service utilization by Indigenous cancer patients.

Trends in quality of care and barriers to improvement in the Indian Health Service

BACKGROUND

Although Native Americans experience substantial disparities in health outcomes, little information is available regarding healthcare delivery for this population.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze trends in ambulatory quality of care and physician reports of barriers to quality improvement within the Indian Health Service (IHS).

DESIGN

Longitudinal analysis of clinical performance from 2002 to 2006 within the IHS, and a physician survey in 2007.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients cared for within the IHS and 740 federally employed physicians within the IHS.

MAIN MEASURES

Clinical performance for 12 measures of ambulatory care within the IHS; as well as physician reports of ability to access needed health services and use of quality improvement strategies. We examined the correlation between physician reports of access to mammography and clinical performance of breast cancer screening. A similar correlation was analyzed for diabetic retinopathy screening.

KEY RESULTS

Clinical performance significantly improved for 10 of the 12 measures from 2002 to 2006, including adult immunizations, cholesterol testing, and measures of blood pressure and cholesterol control for diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Breast cancer screening rates decreased (44% to 40%, p = 0.002), while screening rates for diabetic retinopathy remained constant (51%). Fewer than half of responding primary care physicians reported adequate access to high-quality specialists (29%), non-emergency hospital admission (37%), high-quality imaging services (32%), and high-quality outpatient mental health services (16%). Breast cancer screening rates were higher at sites with higher rates of physicians reporting routine access to mammography compared to sites with lower rates of physicians reporting such access (46% vs. 35%, ρ = 0.27, p = 0.04). Most physicians reported using patient registries and decision support tools to improve patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality of care has improved within the IHS for many services, however performance in specific areas may be limited by access to essential resources.