Factors influencing cancer patients' experiences of care in the USA, United Kingdom, and Canada: A systematic review

Inequalities in patients' experiences with cancer care: the role of economic and health literacy determinants

BACKGROUND

Patients with fewer socioeconomic and health literacy resources are disadvantaged in their access and use of healthcare, which may give rise to worse experiences with care and thus inequalities in patient experiences. However, only a limited number of studies have examined how socioeconomic and health literacy factors shape inequalities in patients' experiences with cancer care.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether patients' experiences with cancer care differ according to their economic status and health literacy.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data on 2789 adult patients diagnosed with cancer from the Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences-2 (SCAPE-2) study, a cross-sectional survey conducted in eight hospitals across Switzerland from September 2021 to February 2022. Regression analysis was applied to examine the independent effect of patients' economic status and health literacy on various outcomes of experiences with cancer care, covering eight different dimensions of patient-centred care, controlling for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Adjusted regression analysis showed that patients with lower economic status reported significantly worse experiences with cancer care in 12 out of 29 specific care experiences, especially in the dimensions of 'respect for patients' preferences' and 'physical comfort' where all items of experiences were associated with economic status. Additionally, lower health literacy was associated with worse patient experiences in 23 specific care experiences. All items in the dimensions of 'respect for patients' preferences', 'physical comfort' and 'emotional support' were associated with health literacy.

DISCUSSION

This study revealed significant inequalities in experiences with cancer care shaped by the economic status and health literacy of patients across different dimensions of patient-centred care. It is essential to address the needs of more disadvantaged patients who face obstacles in their access and use of the healthcare system, not only to mitigate inequalities in cancer care but also to avoid inequalities in health outcomes.

Health-care organization characteristics in cancer care delivery: an integrated conceptual framework with content validation

Context can influence cancer-related outcomes. For example, health-care organization characteristics, including ownership, leadership, and culture, can affect care access, communication, and patient outcomes. Health-care organization characteristics and other contextual factors can also influence whether and how clinical discoveries reduce cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality. Importantly, policy, market, and technology changes are transforming health-care organization design, culture, and operations across the cancer continuum. Consequently, research is essential to examine when, for whom, and how organizational characteristics influence person-level, organization-level, and population-level cancer outcomes. Understanding organizational characteristics-the structures, processes, and other features of entities involved in health care delivery-and their dynamics is an important yet understudied area of care delivery research across the cancer continuum. Research incorporating organizational characteristics is critical to address health inequities, test care delivery models, adapt interventions, and strengthen implementation. The field lacks conceptual grounding, however, to help researchers identify germane organizational characteristics. We propose a framework identifying organizational characteristics relevant for cancer care delivery research based on conceptual work in health services, organizational behavior, and management science and refined using a systematic review and key informant input. The proposed framework is a tool for organizing existing research and enhancing future cancer care delivery research. Following a 2012 Journal of the National Cancer Institute monograph, this work complements National Cancer Institute efforts to stimulate research addressing the relationship between cancer outcomes and contextual factors at the patient, provider, team, delivery organization, community, and health policy levels.

A Retrospective Age Analysis of the Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey: Differences in Satisfaction across Dimensions of Person-Centred Care and Unmet Needs among Older Adults Receiving Cancer Treatment

Over half of all new cancer cases in Alberta are diagnosed among people aged 65+ years, a group that encompasses vast variation. Patient-reported experience measures are routinely collected within Cancer Care Alberta; however, the specific consideration of the needs and concerns of older Albertans with cancer is lacking. In 2021, 2204 adults who had received treatment at a cancer centre in Alberta completed the Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey (AOPSS). In this study, we explored the age differences in satisfaction across six dimensions of person-centred care and in the proportions of unmet needs across eight types of issues, with specific attention to older adults. Using three age groups (18-39, 40-64, 65+), only the physical comfort dimension showed significantly lower satisfaction among those aged 65+ years. Using five age groups (18-39, 40-64, 65-74, 75-84, 85+), significantly lower levels of satisfaction were found related to 'physical comfort' for those aged 65-74 and 75-84, 'coordination and continuity of care' for those aged 75-84 and 85+, and 'information, communication, and education' for those aged 85+. Therefore, grouping together all older adults aged 65+ years obscured lower levels of satisfaction with some dimensions of person-centred care among those aged 75-84 and 85+ years. Unmet needs generally increased with age for all types of issues, with significant differences across age groups for emotional, financial, social/family, and sexual health issues. The lower levels of satisfaction and higher proportions of unmet needs call for tailored interventions to promote optimal care experiences and outcomes among older adults receiving cancer care in Alberta and their families.

Getting to Know Your Patient: Content Analysis of Patients' Answers to a Questionnaire for Promoting Person-Centered Care

BACKGROUND

Person-centered care (PCC) encourages patients to actively participate in health care, thus facilitating care that fits the life of the patient. Therefore, health care professionals (HCPs) need to know the patient. As part of a broad policy for improving PCC, a digital questionnaire ("We would like to know you") consisting of 5 questions has previously been developed to help HCPs to get to know the patient with the help of patient and staff involvement.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to provide insight into the content and aims of the questionnaire to understand its potential and usability.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative, retrospective content analysis of patients' answers using NVivo Pro (QSR International). The questionnaire was used in the outpatient neuro-oncology department of a Dutch academic hospital.

RESULTS

Of 374 invited patients, 78 (20.9%) completed the questionnaire. We selected a sample of 42 (54%) of the 78 patients. Patients used a median of 16 (IQR 7-27) words per question, and most answers were easily interpretable. When asked about important activities, social activities, sports, or maintaining a normal life were most frequently mentioned. Patients wrote about fear of the disease, its possible influence on life, or fear of the future in general. Patients wanted HCPs to know about their care and communication preferences or shared personal information. They formulated expectations about effective treatment, communication, and the care process.

CONCLUSIONS

The questionnaire seems usable because patients provide interpretable answers that take little time to read, which HCPs can use to personalize care. Our study shows the potential of the questionnaire to help deliver PCC.

Psychiatric disorders and the cancer diagnostic process in general practice: a combined questionnaire and register study exploring the patients' experiences in Denmark

OBJECTIVE

Patients with psychiatric disorders are at risk of experiencing suboptimal cancer diagnostics and treatment. This study investigates how this patient group perceives the cancer diagnostic process in general practice.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study using questionnaire and register data.

SETTING

General practice in Denmark.

SUBJECTS

Patients diagnosed with cancer in late 2016 completed a questionnaire about their experiences with their general practitioner (GP) in the cancer diagnostic process (n = 3411). Information on pre-existing psychiatric disorders was obtained from register data on psychiatric hospital contacts and primary care treated psychiatric disorders through psychotropic medications. Logistic regression was used to analyse the association between psychiatric disorders and the patients' experiences.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients' experiences, including cancer worry, feeling being taken seriously, and the perceived time between booking an appointment and the first GP consultation.[Box: see text].

RESULTS

A total of 13% of patients had an indication of a psychiatric disorder. This group more often perceived the time interval as too short between the first booking of a consultation and the first GP consultation. Patients with primary care treated psychiatric disorders were more likely to worry about cancer at the first presentation and to share this concern with their GP compared with patients without psychiatric disorders. We observed no statistically significant association between patients with psychiatric disorders and perceiving the waiting time to referral from general practice, being taken seriously, trust in the GP's abilities, and the patients' knowledge of the process following the GP referral.

CONCLUSION

The patients' experiences with the cancer diagnostic process in general practice did not vary largely between patients with and without psychiatric disorders. Worrying about cancer may be a particular concern for patients with primary care treated psychiatric disorders.

Where are the inequalities in ovarian cancer care in a country with universal healthcare? A systematic review and narrative synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer from more deprived areas may face barriers to accessing timely, quality healthcare. We evaluated the literature for any association between socioeconomic group, treatments received and hospital delay among patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the United Kingdom, a country with universal healthcare.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCIE, AMED, PsycINFO and HMIC from inception to January 2023. Forward and backward citation searches were conducted. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. UK-based studies were included if they reported socioeconomic measures and an association with either treatments received or hospital delay. The inclusion of studies from one country ensured greater comparability. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUIPS tool, and a narrative synthesis was conducted. The review is reported to PRISMA 2020 and registered with PROSPERO [CRD42022332071].

RESULTS

Out of 2876 references screened, ten were included. Eight studies evaluated treatments received, and two evaluated hospital delays. We consistently observed socioeconomic inequalities in the likelihood of surgery (range of odds ratios 0.24-0.99) and chemotherapy (range of odds ratios 0.70-0.99) among patients from the most, compared with the least, deprived areas. There were no associations between socioeconomic groups and hospital delay.

POLICY SUMMARY

Ovarian cancer treatments differed between socioeconomic groups despite the availability of universal healthcare. Further research is needed to understand why, though suggested reasons include patient choice, health literacy, and financial and employment factors. Qualitative research would provide a rich understanding of the complex factors that drive these inequalities.

Evaluating Social Determinants of Health Related to Cancer Survivorship and Quality of Care

BACKGROUND

Social determinants of health posit that negative outcomes are influenced by individuals living in underserved and underresourced neighborhoods.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines a cancer diagnosis, race/ethnicity, age, geographic location (residence), education, and social economic status factors at disease onset and treatment.

METHODS

A multivariable PO regression analysis was run for quality of care at testing or diagnosis, and quality of care at treatment and the quality of received care compared with another person.

RESULTS

Participants are representative of the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS) of adults diagnosed with breast (n = 263), prostate (n = 195), lung (n = 46), colorectal (n = 105), or other cancers (n = 526). This study includes cancer survivors who completed the SCCS Baseline and Cancer Navigation Surveys in urban (73.13%) and rural (26.87%) areas. White participants reported a higher quality of received care for testing or diagnosis and care for treatment compared with Black participants. Participants with high school or equivalent education (odds ratio, 1.662; 95% confidence interval, 1.172-2.356; P = .0044) or some college or junior college education (odds ratio, 1.970; 95% confidence interval, 1.348-2.879; P = .0005) were more likely to report a better level of quality of received care for treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The SCCS represents individuals who are historically underrepresented in cancer research. The results of this study will have broad implications across diverse communities to reduce disparities and inform models of care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurses are positioned to evaluate the quality of population health and design and lead interventions that will benefit underserved and underresourced communities.

The health care experiences of people with head and neck cancer: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Understanding health care experience in head and neck cancer (HNC) is becoming increasingly important due to changes in the disease profile, survivorship, and a greater appreciation of patient health care experience as an important outcome measure. People with HNC encounter many different types of health care professionals and health care touchpoints.

METHOD

Through systematic database searching, this scoping review of qualitative English-language studies describes the self-reported care experiences of those with HNC across the health care continuum, and describes the current state of the literature.

RESULTS

Overall, the 95 studies identified were heterogeneous and investigated a broad range of topics. Trends across studies showed research centered on hospital-based care, conducted in developed countries, with more studies on feeding than other aspects of care. Generic qualitative research frameworks, with individual interviews, were the preferred method of data collection.

CONCLUSION

Despite identifying many studies, there are significant gaps in our understanding of the HNC patient experience.

First impressions: A prospective evaluation of patient-physician concordance and satisfaction following the initial medical oncology consultation

BACKGROUND

An especially significant event in the patient-oncologist relationship is the initial consultation, where many complex topics-diagnosis, treatment intent, and often, prognosis-are discussed in a relatively short period of time. This study aimed to measure patients' understanding of the information discussed during their first medical oncology visit and their satisfaction with the communication from medical oncologists.

METHODS

Between January and August 2021, patients without prior systemic treatment of their gastrointestinal malignancy (GI) attending the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PMCC) were approached within 24 h of their initial consultation to complete a paper-based questionnaire assessing understanding of their disease (diagnosis, treatment plan/intent, and prognosis) and satisfaction with the consultation. Medical oncology physicians simultaneously completed a similar questionnaire about the information discussed at the initial visit. Matched patient-physician responses were compared to assess the degree of concordance.

RESULTS

A total of 184 matched patient-physician surveys were completed. The concordance rates for understanding of diagnosis, treatment plan, treatment intent, and prognosis were 92.9%, 59.2%, 66.8%, and 59.8%, respectively. After adjusting for patient and physician variables, patients who reported treatment intent to be unclear at the time of the consultation were independently associated with lower satisfaction scores (global p = 0.014). There was no statistically significant association between patient satisfaction and whether prognosis was disclosed (p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

An in-depth conversation as to what treatment intent and prognosis means is reasonable during the initial medical oncology consultation to ensure patients and caregivers have a better understanding about their cancer.

Diagnosis, treatment, and survival from kidney cancer: real-world National Health Service England data between 2013 and 2019

OBJECTIVES

To report the NHS Digital (NHSD) data for patients diagnosed with kidney cancer (KC) in England. We explore the incidence, route to diagnosis (RTD), treatment, and survival patterns from 2013 to 2019.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data was extracted from the Cancer Data NHSD portal for International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition coded KC; this included Cancer Registry data, Hospital Episode Statistics, and cancer waiting times data.

RESULTS

Registrations included 66 696 individuals with KC. Incidence of new KC diagnoses increased (8998 in 2013, to 10 232 in 2019), but the age-standardised rates were stable (18.7-19.4/100 000 population). Almost half of patients (30 340 [45.5%]) were aged 0-70 years and the cohort were most frequently diagnosed with Stage 1-2 KC (n = 26 297 [39.4%]). Most patients were diagnosed through non-urgent general practitioner referrals (n = 16 814 [30.4%]), followed by 2-week-wait (n = 15 472 [28.0%]) and emergency routes (n = 11 796 [21.3%]), with older patients (aged ≥70 years), Stage 4 KCs, and patients with non-specified renal cell carcinoma being significantly more likely to present through the emergency route (all P < 0.001). Invasive treatment (surgery or ablation), radiotherapy, or systemic anti-cancer therapy use varied with disease stage, patient factors, and treatment network (Cancer Alliance). Survival outcomes differed by Stage, histological subtype, and social deprivation class (P < 0.001). Age-standardised mortality rates did not change over the study duration, although immunotherapy usage is likely not captured in this study timeline.

CONCLUSION

The NHSD resource provides useful insight about the incidence, diagnostic pathways, treatment, and survival of patients with KC in England and a useful benchmark for the upcoming commissioned National Kidney Cancer Audit. The RTD data may be limited by incidental diagnoses, which could confound the high proportion of 'emergency' diagnoses. Importantly, survival outcomes remained relatively unchanged.

Socio-demographic and health-related determinants of patients' overall rating and experiences of cancer care

BACKGROUND

Understanding how patient-reported experiences of care and overall rating of care vary among patients with different characteristics is useful to help interpret results from patient experience surveys and design targeted improvement interventions. The primary objective of this paper was to identify the socio-demographic and health-related characteristics independently associated with overall rating of cancer care. The secondary objective was to explore if and how these characteristics were associated with specific experiences of cancer care.

METHODS

This cross-sectional multicenter study analyzed self-reported data collected from 2696 patients diagnosed with breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, skin, or hematological cancer from four large hospitals in French-speaking Switzerland. Multivariate logistic regressions with purposeful stepwise selection of independent variables were used to identify the socio-demographic and health-related characteristics independently associated with overall rating of cancer care in the primary analyses. In the secondary analyses, we ran the multivariate model from the primary analyses with specific experiences of care as outcomes to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the selected characteristics.

RESULTS

Respondents' mean rating of overall cancer care was 8.5 on a scale from 0 to 10, with 17% categorized as reporting a low rating (0-7 rating). Being a woman (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12-1.83), not being Swiss (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12-1.94), reporting lower health literacy (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.54-2.47), preferring making medical decisions alone (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.38-2.67), having forgone care due to cost (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.29-2.29), having used complementary medicine (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.22-1.97), and reporting poorer health (OR 3.12, 95% CI 2.17-4.50) were all independently associated with a low rating of overall cancer care. Poorer health, lower health literacy, and having forgone care were the three characteristics most often associated with problematic experiences of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results identified several patient characteristics consistently associated with lower overall rating of care and specific experiences of cancer care. Among these determinants, health literacy and financial hardship emerged as key recurring factors shaping poor patient experiences that should be prioritized for attention by cancer care services.

The impact of psychological distress on quality of care and access to mental health services in cancer survivors

Introduction

Psychological distress is highly prevalent among cancer survivors and significantly impacts their health outcomes. Our study aim is to examine the impact of psychological distress on the quality of care in cancer survivors.

Methods

We utilized longitudinal panels from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data spanning from 2016 to 2019 to estimate the impact of psychological distress on quality of care. We compared a sample of cancer survivors with psychological distress (N = 176) to a matched sample of cancer survivors without psychological distress (N = 2,814). We employed multivariable logistic regression models and Poisson regression models. In all models, we adjusted for age at the survey, sex, race/ethnicity, education, income, insurance, exercise, chronic conditions, body mass index, and smoking status. Descriptive statistics and regression models were performed using STATA software.

Results

Our findings revealed a higher prevalence of psychological distress among younger survivors, females, individuals with lower incomes, and those with public insurance. Cancer survivors with psychological distress reported more adverse patient experiences compared to those without distress. Specifically, survivors with distress had lower odds of receiving clear explanations of their care (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.17-0.99) and lower odds of feeling respected in expressing their concerns (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.18-0.99) by their healthcare providers. Furthermore, psychological distress was associated with increased healthcare utilization, as evidenced by a higher number of visits (p = 0.02). It also correlated with a decrease in healthcare service ratings (p = 0.01) and the affordability of mental health services (p < 0.01) for cancer survivors.

Discussion

These findings indicate that psychological distress can significantly impact the delivery of healthcare and the patient experience among cancer survivors. Our study underscores the importance of recognizing and addressing the mental health needs of cancer survivors. It provides insights for healthcare professionals and policymakers to better understand and cater to the mental health needs of this population.

Quality of care and quality of life as experienced by patients with advanced cancer of a rare tumour type: results of the multicentre observational eQuiPe study

PURPOSE

Patients with a rare cancer face difficulties during their disease trajectory, such as delayed diagnosis and lack of expert care. However, little is known about their perceived quality of care (QoC) and quality of life (QoL) in the advanced disease stage. We aimed to assess the QoC and QoL as experienced by patients with advanced rare cancers compared to patients with advanced common cancers.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, baseline data of patients with advanced cancer from the multicentre, longitudinal, observational eQuipe study were analysed. Multivariable linear regression analyses were conducted to assess differences in experienced QoC (continuity of care, continuity of information, and satisfaction with care) and QoL (functioning, symptoms, overall QoL, and social wellbeing) between advanced rare and common cancer patients.

RESULTS

Of the 1087 included patients, 106 (9.8%) had a rare cancer type. In comparison to patients with advanced common cancers, patients with advanced rare cancers experienced significantly lower continuity of care (77.8 vs. 71.1 respectively, p = 0.011) and social functioning (78.8 vs. 72.6 respectively, p = 0.012). No differences were found regarding continuity of information, satisfaction with care, overall QoL, and social wellbeing.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with advanced rare cancers experience less continuity of care, and the impact of the disease on social and family life seems higher compared to patients with advanced common cancers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

To enhance the QoC and QoL of patients with advanced rare cancers, supportive care should mainly focus on improving continuity of care and patients' social functioning.

Perception of Survivorship Needs Among Breast Cancer Patients in Trinidad and Tobago

The perception of survivorship among the cancer communities of the Caribbean is largely unknown. This study focused on determining the perception and interest in cancer survivorship among breast cancer (BC) patients in Trinidad and Tobago, as a preliminary, to introducing a pilot survivorship program and evaluating its impact on this patient population. Participants were given a questionnaire to determine needs, expectations and interest in survivorship care. Baseline measurable outcomes reported in this article include the following: 1. Participants' satisfaction with their medical care follow-up plan (if any), 2. Participants' satisfaction with the amount of information provided by healthcare providers, and 3. Participants' satisfaction with their physician's overall concern about their well-being, ranked on a 5-point Likert scale. Participants also reported on the advice/ guidelines provided by their physicians, after surgery and/or on completion of treatment, what they did to cope with BC, and their expectations of what could have been done to improve the quality of care received. A second questionnaire was then used to measure the level of interest in participating in a Cancer Survivorship Program (CSP) with components such as: nutrition, psychosocial development, spiritual well-being, and yoga and mindfulness. The level of interest was ranked by participants on a 5-point Likert scale. Fifteen themes emerged from participants' responses to the first questionnaire. Nutrition stood out as the module of highest interest, followed by psychosocial development among BC patients.

Factors influencing cancer survivors' experiences with follow-up cancer care: results from the pan-Canadian Experiences of Cancer Patients in Transition Study survey

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of individual and structural factors on cancer survivors' experiences with follow-up cancer care.

METHODS

In 2016, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer collected survey responses from cancer survivors about their experiences with follow-up cancer care. We included respondents from this survey if they were diagnosed with non-metastatic breast, hematologic, colon, melanoma, and prostate cancer. Our primary outcome was cancer survivors' self-reported overall experience with follow-up cancer care. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the influence of individual and structural factors on cancer survivors' experiences with follow-up cancer care.

RESULTS

Of the 8402 cancer survivors included in our study, 81.8% (n = 6,875) reported a positive experience with their follow-up cancer care. The individual factors associated with positive overall experiences were more commonly those associated with self-perceptions of respondents' personal health and well-being rather than baseline sociodemographic factors, such as sex, income, or education. For example, respondents were more likely to report a positive experience if they perceived their quality of life as good (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.5, p < 0.01) or reported not having an unmet practical concern (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6, p < 0.01). The structural factors most strongly associated with positive overall experiences included respondents perceiving their oncology specialist was in charge of their follow-up cancer care (OR 5.2, 95% CI 3.6-7.5, p < 0.01) and reporting the coordination of their follow-up cancer care among healthcare providers was good or very good (OR 8.4, 95% CI 6.7-10.6, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

While real-world experiences with follow-up cancer care in Canada are reported to be positive by most cancer survivors included in this study, we found differences exist based on individual and structural factors. A better understanding of the reasons for these differences is required to guide the provision of high-quality follow-up care that is adapted to the needs and resources of individuals and contexts.

Inpatient Experience Surveys and Overall Hospital Rating: A Correlation Analysis for a Private Hospital in Central America

Objectives: To validate the use of a patient experience survey composed of the Spanish version of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey and of questions locally created in our institution, a private hospital in Panama. To identify which domains of our patient experience survey have the strongest association with the overall inpatient hospital experience rating. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1619 electronic survey results of adult inpatient experience data was performed using exploratory factor and Pearson correlation analyses. The data was collected between March 2018 and December 2019 from a web-survey application, accessible through a link sent by email after hospital discharge. Results: Results from analyses showed that questions grouping occurred under the same domains as the HCAHPS English version (factor loading 0.456 to 0.918) and that a new domain named administrative processes (0.818 to 0.846) arose for the newly created questions. Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.32 to 0.85, with an α of0.65 for the new local questions. Correlation analyses were higher for the domains of communication from nurses (0.670) and administrative processes (0.618). Conclusions: Our investigation validates the use of our patient experience survey, composed of questions from the Spanish version of the HCAHPS survey and locally created ones. In our institution, communication from nurses is most correlated with the inpatient hospital experience rating. Hospital administrative processes were also strongly associated with the overall inpatient hospital rating, and we argue that these later aspects should be addressed to improve the patient experience.