Hospital Choice in Cancer Care: A Qualitative Study

Hospital Factors Influencing the Mobility of Patients for Systemic Therapies in Breast and Bowel Cancer in the Metastatic Setting: A National Population-based Evaluation

AIMS

This national study investigated hospital quality and patient factors associated with treatment location for systemic anticancer treatment (SACT) in patients with metastatic cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using linked administrative datasets from the English NHS, we identified all patients diagnosed with metastatic breast and bowel cancer between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018, who subsequently received SACT within 4 months from diagnosis. The extent to which patients bypassed their nearest hospital was investigated using a geographic information system (ArcGIS). Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate the impact of travel time, hospital quality and patient characteristics on where patients underwent SACT.

RESULTS

541 of 2,364 women (22.9%) diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, and 2,809 of 10,050 (28.0%) patients diagnosed with metastatic bowel cancer bypassed their nearest hospital providing SACT. There was a strong preference for receiving treatment at hospitals near where patients lived (p < 0.001). However, patients who were younger (p = 0.043 for breast cancer; p < 0.001 for bowel cancer) or from rural areas (p = 0.001 for breast cancer; p < 0.001 for bowel cancer) were more likely to travel to more distant hospitals. Patients diagnosed with rectal cancer were more likely to travel further for SACT than patients with colon cancer (p = 0.002). Patients were more likely to travel to comprehensive cancer centres (p = 0.019 for bowel cancer) and designated Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres (ECMCs) although the latter association was not significant. Patients were less likely to receive SACT in hospitals with the highest readmission rates (p = 0.046 for bowel cancer).

CONCLUSION

Patients with metastatic cancer receiving primary SACT are prepared to travel to alternative more distant hospitals for treatment with a preference for larger comprehensive centres providing multimodal care or hospitals which offer early phase cancer clinical trials.

Choosing a maternity hospital: a matter of travel distance or quality of care?

BACKGROUND

The choice of a hospital should be based on individual need and accessibility. For maternity hospitals, this includes known or expected risk factors, the geographic accessibility and level of care provided by the hospital. This study aims to identify factors influencing hospital choice with the aim to analyze if and how many deliveries are conducted in a risk-appropriate and accessible setting in Bavaria, Germany.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional secondary data analysis based on all first births in Bavaria (2015-18) provided by the Bavarian Quality Assurance Institute for Medical Care. Information on the mother and on the hospital were included. The Bavarian Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 was used to account for area-level socioeconomic differences. Multiple logistic regression models were used to estimate the strength of association of the predicting factors and to adjust for confounding.

RESULTS

We included 195,087 births. Distances to perinatal centers were longer than to other hospitals (16 km vs. 12 km). 10% of women with documented risk pregnancies did not deliver in a perinatal center. Regressions showed that higher age (OR 1.03; 1.02-1.03 95%-CI) and risk pregnancy (OR 1.44; 1.41-1.47 95%-CI) were associated with choosing a perinatal center. The distances travelled show high regional variation with a strong urban-rural divide.

CONCLUSION

In a health system with free choice of hospitals, many women chose a hospital close to home and/or according to their risks. However, this is not the case for 10% of mothers, a group that would benefit from more coordinated care.

Association of travel time, patient characteristics, and hospital quality with patient mobility for breast cancer surgery: A national population-based study

BACKGROUND

This national study investigated hospital quality and patient factors associated with treatment location for breast cancer surgery.

METHODS

By using linked administrative data sets from the English National Health Service, the authors identified all women diagnosed between January 2, 2016, and December 31, 2018, who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or a mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction. The extent to which patients bypassed their nearest hospital was investigated using a geographic information system (ArcGIS). Conditional logistic regressions were used to estimate the impact of travel time, hospital quality, and patient characteristics.

RESULTS

22,622 Of 69,153 patients undergoing BCS, 22,622 (32.7%) bypassed their nearest hospital; and, of 23,536 patients undergoing mastectomy, 7179 (30.5%) bypassed their nearest hospital. Women who were younger, without comorbidities, or from rural areas were more likely to travel to more distant hospitals (p < .05). Patients undergoing BCS (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-2.50) or mastectomy (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14-2.02) were more likely to be treated at specialist breast reconstruction centers despite not undergoing the procedure. Patients receiving mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction were more likely to travel to hospitals employing surgeons who had a media reputation (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.28-4.52). Patients undergoing BCS were less likely to travel to hospitals with shorter surgical waiting times (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.92). The authors did not observe a significant impact for research activity, hospital quality rating, breast re-excision rates, or the status as a multidisciplinary cancer center.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient choice policies may drive inequalities in the health care system without improving patient outcomes.

Quality indicators in surgical oncology: systematic review of measures used to compare quality across hospitals

BACKGROUND

Measurement and reporting of quality indicators at the hospital level has been shown to improve outcomes and support patient choice. Although there are many studies validating individual quality indicators, there has been no systematic approach to understanding what quality indicators exist for surgical oncology and no standardization for their use. The aim of this study was to review quality indicators used to assess variation in quality in surgical oncology care across hospitals or regions. It also sought to describe the aims of these studies and what, if any, feedback was offered to the analysed groups.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 October 2023 that applied surgical quality indicators to detect variation in cancer care at the hospital or regional level.

RESULTS

A total of 89 studies assessed 91 unique quality indicators that fell into the following Donabedian domains: process indicators (58; 64%); outcome indicators (26; 29%); structure indicators (6; 7%); and structure and outcome indicators (1; 1%). Purposes of evaluating variation included: identifying outliers (43; 48%); comparing centres with a benchmark (14; 16%); and supplying evidence of practice variation (29; 33%). Only 23 studies (26%) reported providing the results of their analyses back to those supplying data.

CONCLUSION

Comparisons of quality in surgical oncology within and among hospitals and regions have been undertaken in high-income countries. Quality indicators tended to be process measures and reporting focused on identifying outlying hospitals. Few studies offered feedback to data suppliers.

What can patient-reported experience measures tell us about the variation in patients' experience of prostate cancer care? A cross-sectional study using survey data from the National Prostate Cancer Audit in England

OBJECTIVES

A national survey aimed to measure how men with prostate cancer perceived their involvement in and decisions around their care immediately after diagnosis. This study aimed to describe any differences found by socio-demographic groups.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of men who were diagnosed with and treated for prostate cancer.

SETTING

The National Prostate Cancer Audit patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) survey in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Men diagnosed in 2014-2016, with non-metastatic prostate cancer, were surveyed. Responses from 32 796 men were individually linked to records from a national clinical audit and to administrative hospital data. Age, ethnicity, deprivation and disease risk classification were used to explore variation in responses to selected questions.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Responses to five questions from the PREMs survey: the proportion responding to the highest positive category was compared across the socio-demographic characteristics above.

RESULTS

When adjusted for other factors, older men were less likely than men under the age of 60 to feel side effects had been explained in a way they could understand (men 80+: relative risk (RR)=0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00), that their views were considered (RR=0.79, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87) or that they were involved in decisions (RR=0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00). The latter was also apparent for men who were not white (black men: RR=0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; Asian men: RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96) and, to a lesser extent, for more deprived men.

CONCLUSIONS

The observed discrepancies highlight the need for more focus on initiatives to improve the experience of ethnic minority patients and those older than 60 years. The findings also argue for further validation of discriminatory instruments to help cancer care providers fully understand the variation in the experience of their patients.

Impact of Cancer Care Regionalization on Patient Volume

BACKGROUND

Cancer centers are regionalizing care to expand patient access, but the effects on patient volume are unknown. This study aimed to compare patient volumes before and after the establishment of head and neck regional care centers (HNRCCs).

METHODS

This study analyzed 35,394 unique new patient visits at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) before and after the creation of HNRCCs. Univariate regression estimated the rate of increase in new patient appointments. Geospatial analysis evaluated patient origin and distribution.

RESULTS

The mean new patients per year in 2006-2011 versus 2012-2017 was 2735 ± 156 patients versus 3155 ± 207 patients, including 464 ± 78 patients at HNRCCs, reflecting a 38.4 % increase in overall patient volumes. The rate of increase in new patient appointments did not differ significantly before and after HNRCCs (121.9 vs 95.8 patients/year; P = 0.519). The patients from counties near HNRCCs, showed a 210.8 % increase in appointments overall, 33.8 % of which were at an HNRCC. At the main campus exclusively, the shift in regional patients to HNRCCs coincided with a lower rate of increase in patients from the MDACC service area (33.7 vs. 11.0 patients/year; P = 0.035), but the trend was toward a greater increase in out-of-state patients (25.7 vs. 40.3 patients/year; P = 0.299).

CONCLUSIONS

The creation of HNRCCs coincided with stable increases in new patient volume, and a sizeable minority of patients sought care at regional centers. Regional patients shifted to the HNRCCs, and out-of-state patient volume increased at the main campus, optimizing access for both local and out-of-state patients.

Media coverage of cancer therapeutics: A review of literature

BACKGROUND

Information and stories about cancer treatment are increasingly available to patients and the general public through lay media, websites, blogs and social media. While these resources may be helpful to supplement information provided during physician-patient discussions, there is growing concern about the extent to which media reports accurately reflect advances in cancer care. This review aimed to understand the landscape of published research which has described media coverage of cancer treatments.

METHODS

This literature review included peer-reviewed primary research articles that reported how cancer treatments are portrayed in the lay media. A structured literature search of Medline, EMBASE and Google Scholar was performed. Potentially eligible articles were reviewed by three authors for inclusion. Three reviewers, each independently reviewed eligible studies; discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included. The content of the eligible studies reflected two thematic categories: articles that reviewed specific drugs/cancer treatment (n = 7) and articles that described media coverage of cancer treatment in general terms (n = 7). Key findings include the media's frequent and unfounded use of superlatives and hype for new cancer treatments. Parallel to this, media reports over-emphasize potential treatment benefits and do not present a balanced view of risks of side effects, cost, and death. At a broad level, there is emerging evidence that media reporting of cancer treatments may directly impact patient care and policy-making.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identifies problems in current media reports of new cancer advances - especially with undue use of superlatives and hype. Given the frequency with which patients access this information and the potential for it to influence policy, there is a need for additional research in this space in addition to educational interventions with health journalists. The oncology community - scientists and clinicians - must ensure that we are not contributing to these problems.

Association of Quality and Technology With Patient Mobility for Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Importance

Many health care systems publish hospital-level quality measures as a driver of hospital performance and to support patient choice, but it is not known if patients with cancer respond to them.

Objective

To investigate hospital quality and patient factors associated with treatment location.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This choice modeling study used national administrative hospital data. Patients with colon and rectal cancer treated in all 163 English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals delivering colorectal cancer surgery between April 2016 and March 2019 were included. The extent to which patients chose to bypass their nearest surgery center was investigated, and conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the association of additional travel time, hospital quality measures, and patient characteristics with treatment location.

Exposures

Additional travel time in minutes, hospital characteristics, and patient characteristics: age, sex, cancer T stage, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and rural or urban residence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Treatment location.

Results

Overall, 44 299 patients were included in the final cohort (mean [SD] age, 68.9 [11.6] years; 18 829 [42.5%] female). A total of 8550 of 31 258 patients with colon cancer (27.4%) and 3933 of 13 041 patients with rectal cancer (30.2%) bypassed their nearest surgical center. Travel time was strongly associated with treatment location. The association was less strong for younger, more affluent patients and those from rural areas. For rectal cancer, patients were more likely to travel to a hospital designated as a specialist colorectal cancer surgery center (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13-1.87; P = .004) and to a hospital performing robotic surgery for rectal cancer (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.86; P = .007). Patients were less likely to travel to hospitals deemed to have inadequate care by the national quality regulator (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.97; P = .03). Patients were not more likely to travel to hospitals with better 2-year bowel cancer mortality outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

Patients appear responsive to hospital characteristics that reflect overall hospital quality and the availability of robotic surgery but not to specific disease-related outcome measures. Policies allowing patients to choose where they have colorectal cancer surgery may not result in better outcomes but could drive inequities in the health care system.

Simulating the impact of centralization of prostate cancer surgery services on travel burden and equity in the English National Health Service: A national population based model for health service re-design

Introduction

There is limited evidence on the impact of centralization of cancer treatment services on patient travel burden and access to treatment. Using prostate cancer surgery as an example, this national study analysis aims to simulate the effect of different centralization scenarios on the number of center closures, patient travel times, and equity in access.

Methods

We used patient‐level data on all men (n = 19,256) undergoing radical prostatectomy in the English National Health Service between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014, and considered three scenarios for centralization of prostate cancer surgery services A: procedure volume, B: availability of specialized services, and C: optimization of capacity. The probability of patients travelling to each of the remaining centers in the choice set was predicted using a conditional logit model, based on preferences revealed through actual hospital selections. Multivariable linear regression analysed the impact on travel time according to patient characteristics.

Results

Scenarios A, B, and C resulted in the closure of 28, 24, and 37 of the 65 radical prostatectomy centers, respectively, affecting 3993 (21%), 5763 (30%), and 7896 (41%) of the men in the study. Despite similar numbers of center closures the expected average increase on travel time was very different for scenario B (+15 minutes) and A (+28 minutes). A distance minimization approach, assigning patients to their next nearest center, with patient preferences not considered, estimated a lower impact on travel burden in all scenarios. The additional travel burden on older, sicker, less affluent patients was evident, but where significant, the absolute difference was very small.

Conclusion

The study provides an innovative simulation approach using national patient‐level datasets, patient preferences based on actual hospital selections, and personal characteristics to inform health service planning. With this approach, we demonstrated for prostate cancer surgery that three different centralization scenarios would lead to similar number of center closures but to different increases in patient travel time, whilst all having a minimal impact on equity.