The patient’s perspective of the quality of breast cancer care

Practical Guide to Implementation Science for Surgical Oncologists: Case Study of Breast Cancer Short Stay Program

BACKGROUND

Long lags exist in adoption and uptake of evidence-based interventions into real-world clinical practice based on oncology clinical trial results. Implementation science (IS) is a distinct field of health services research that aims to understand the barriers related to adoption of evidence-based guidelines and research in clinical practice.

METHODS

Use of IS study design, methods, and outcomes can be elusive to surgical oncologists despite the tremendous need for the application of IS to bridge the evidence-to-practice gap. This report describes key components of high-quality IS.

RESULTS

Herein, we illustrate how IS can be used in surgical oncology practice. Examples from implementation of the breast cancer Short Stay Program (SSP) in Netherlands is used to illustrate IS methods. Specific funding and training opportunities in implementation science are described in detail.

CONCLUSION

Use of IS in surgical oncology can help improve the uptake of evidence based medicine.

Quality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematic review

Objectives

We evaluated breast cancer (BC) care quality indicators (QIs) in clinical pathways and integrated health care processes.

Methods

Following protocol registration (Prospero n^o: CRD42021228867), relevant documents were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE), health care valuable representatives and the World Wide Web in April 2021. Data concerning QIs, measurement tools and compliance standards were extracted from European and North American sources in duplicate with 98% reviewer agreement.

Results

There were 89 QIs found from 22 selected documents (QI per document mean 13.5 with standard deviation 11.9). The Belgian (38 QIs) and the EUSOMA (European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists) (34 QIs) documents were the ones that best reported the QIs. No identical QI was identified in all the documents analysed. There were 67/89 QIs covering processes (75.3%) and 11/89 (12.4%) for each structure and outcomes QIs. There were 21/89 QIs for diagnosis (30.3%), 43/89 for treatment (48.3%), and 19/89 for staging, counselling, follow-up and rehabilitation (21.4%). Of 67 process QIs and 11 outcome QIs, 20/78 (26%) did not report a minimum standard of care. Shared decision making was only included as a QI in the Italian document.

Conclusion

More than half of countries have not established a national clinical pathway or integrated breast cancer care process to achieve the excellence of BC care. There was heterogeneity in QIs for the evaluation of BC care quality. Over two-thirds of the clinical pathways and integrated health care processes did not provide a minimum auditable standard of care for compliance, leaving open the definition of best practice. There is a need for harmonisation of BC care QIs.

•

The quality of breast cancer care has become a preference for health systems.

•

There was no established set of quality indicators to harmonise BC quality management’s evaluation. A consensus is needed.

•

Most of the integrated breast cancer care processes or clinical pathways did not indicate any standard for care compliance.

•

No quality indicators specifically related to patient satisfaction or Primary care were found in our study.

•

Shared decision making was only included as a QI in the Italian document.

•

There is a vast space for improvement, and future studies should pay attention to this issue.

Breast Cancer Care Quality Indicators in Spain: A Systematic Review

Breast cancer (BC) management care requires an increment in quality. An initiative to improve the BC quality care is registered, and quality indicators (QIs) are studied. We appraised the appearance of QIs and their standards systematically in Spain. A prospective systematic search (Prospero no: CRD42021228867) for clinical pathways and integrated breast cancer care processes was conducted through databases and the World Wide Web in February 2021. Duplicate data extraction was performed with 98% reviewer agreement. Seventy-four QIs (QI per document mean: 11; standard deviation: 10.59) were found in 15 documents. The Catalonian document had the highest number of QIs (n = 30). No QI appeared in all the documents. There were 9/74 QIs covering structure (12.16%), 53/74 covering process (71.62%), and 12/74 covering outcome (16.22%). A total of 22/66 (33.33%) process and outcome QIs did not set a minimum standard of care. QIs related to primary care, patient satisfaction, and shared decision making were deficient. Most of the documents established a BC QI standard for compliance, but the high variability hinders the comparison of outcomes. Establishing a consensus-based set of QIs needs urgent attention.

Operationalizing patient-centered cancer care: A systematic review and synthesis of the qualitative literature on cancer patients' needs, values, and preferences

OBJECTIVE

Efficiently addressing patient priorities and concerns remains a challenge in oncology. Systematic operationalization of patient-centered care (PCC) can support improved assessment and practice of PCC in this unique care setting. This review aimed to synthesize the qualitative empirical literature exploring the National Academy of Medicine (NAM)'s PCC constructs of values, needs, and preferences among patients' during their cancer treatment experiences.

METHODS

A systematic review of qualitative studies published between 2002 and 2018 addressing adult patient values, needs, and preferences during cancer treatment was conducted. Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases were searched on September 10, 2018. Methodological rigor was assessed using a modified version of the Evaluation Tool for Qualitative Studies. Included study findings were analyzed using line-by-line coding; and the emergent themes were compared to the National Academy of Medicine (NAM)'s PCC dimensions.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine primary studies were included in the synthesis. Descriptive themes for values (autonomy, being involved, family, hope, normality, and sincerity), needs (care coordination, information, privacy, support of physical well-being, emotional support (family/friends, peer, provider), and self-support), and preferences (care coordination, decision-making, information delivery, source of social support, and treatment) were identified. "Cancer care context" emerged as an important domain in which these constructs are operationalized. This thematic framework outlines PCC attributes that oncology care stakeholders can evaluate to improve patient experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings build on previous PCC research and may contribute to the systematic assessment of patient priorities and the improvement of oncology care quality from the patient perspective.

Conceptualizing the key components of rehabilitation following major musculoskeletal trauma: A mixed methods service evaluation

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

The reorganization of acute major trauma pathways in England has increased survival following traumatic injury, resulting in an increased patient population with diverse and complex needs requiring specialist rehabilitation. However, national audit data indicate that only 5% of patients with traumatic injuries have access to specialist rehabilitation, and there are limited guidelines or standards to inform the delivery of rehabilitation interventions for individuals following major trauma. This group concept mapping project aimed to identify the clinical service needs of individuals accessing our major trauma rehabilitation service, prioritize these needs, determine whether each of these needs is currently being met, and plan targeted service enhancements.

METHODS

Participants contributed towards a statement generation exercise to identify the key components of rehabilitation following major trauma, and individually sorted these statements into themes. Each statement was rated based on importance and current success. Multi-dimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were applied to the sorted data to produce themed clusters of ideas within concept maps. Priority values were applied to these maps to identify key areas for targeted service enhancement.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients and health care professionals participated in the ideas generation activity, 34 in the sorting, and 49 in the rating activity. A 7-item cluster map was agreed upon, containing the following named clusters: Communication and Coordination; Emotional and psychological wellbeing; Rehabilitation environment; Early rehabilitation; Structured therapy input; Planning for home; and Long-term support. Areas for targeted service enhancement included access to timely and adequate information provision, collaborative goal setting, and specialist pain management across the rehabilitation pathway.

CONCLUSION

The conceptual framework presented in this article illustrates the importance of a continuum of rehabilitation provision across the injury trajectory, and provides a platform to track future service changes and facilitate the codesign of new rehabilitation interventions for individuals following major trauma.

Group medical consultations (GMCs) and tablet-based online support group sessions in the follow-up of breast cancer: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Group medical consultations (GMCs) provide individual medical visits in the presence of ≤7 peer-patients. In the follow-up of breast cancer, we evaluated the efficacy of a new type of blended care My-GMC, a GMC combined with a tablet-based online app, consisting of three online support group sessions (SGS) and additional information.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial compared the effect of My-GMC (n = 59) with one individual medical visit (n = 50) (care as usual). Between-group differences on the outcomes distress and empowerment were analyzed 1 week, 3 and 6 months after the visit.

RESULTS

No between-group differences were found for the primary outcomes distress and empowerment. More themes were discussed in GMCs compared to individual visits. Significantly more patients experienced peer-support in GMCs (78%) than via the online app (29%). Satisfaction with the online app was low.

CONCLUSIONS

My-GMC did not result in improvements in distress or empowerment, which might partly be explained by low baseline distress levels. This paper provides valuable information concerning factors on organizational level as well as individual level influencing the evaluation of a blended care intervention.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

My-GMC provided an innovative alternative, combining professional and peer-support in face-to-face and online SGS, resulting in additional information provision and peer-support. Further improvement of the apps is needed to improve user satisfaction.

NETHERLANDS TRIAL REGISTER

NTR3771.

Mixed-Methods Study Identifying Key Intervention Targets to Improve Participation in Daily Living Activities in Primary Sjögren's Syndrome Patients

Objective

Functional ability and participation in life situations are compromised in many primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS) patients. This study aimed to identify the key barriers and priorities to participation in daily living activities, in order to develop potential future interventions.

Methods

Group concept mapping, a semiquantitative, mixed‐methods approach was used to identify and structure ideas from UK primary SS patients, adult household members living with a primary SS patient, and health care professionals. Brainstorming generated ideas, which were summarized into a final set of statements. Participants individually arranged these statements into themes and rated each statement for importance. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were applied to sorted and rated data to produce visual representations of the ideas (concept maps), enabling identification of agreed priority areas for interventions.

Results

A total of 121 patients, 43 adult household members, and 67 health care professionals took part. In sum, 463 ideas were distilled down to 94 statements. These statements were grouped into 7 clusters: Patient Empowerment, Symptoms, Wellbeing, Access and Coordination of Health Care, Knowledge and Support, Public Awareness and Support, and Friends and Family. Patient Empowerment and Symptoms were rated as priority conceptual themes. Important statements within priority clusters indicate patients should be taken seriously and supported to self‐manage symptoms of oral and ocular dryness, fatigue, pain, and poor sleep.

Conclusion

Our data highlighted the fact that in addition to managing primary SS symptoms, interventions aiming to improve patient empowerment, general wellbeing, access to health care, patient education, and social support are important to facilitate improved participation in daily living activities.

Indicators and Measurement Tools for Health Systems Integration: A Knowledge Synthesis

Background:

Despite far reaching support for integrated care, conceptualizing and measuring integrated care remains challenging. This knowledge synthesis aimed to identify indicator domains and tools to measure progress towards integrated care.

Methods:

We used an established framework and a Delphi survey with integration experts to identify relevant measurement domains. For each domain, we searched and reviewed the literature for relevant tools.

Findings:

From 7,133 abstracts, we retrieved 114 unique tools. We found many quality tools to measure care coordination, patient engagement and team effectiveness/performance. In contrast, there were few tools in the domains of performance measurement and information systems, alignment of organizational goals and resource allocation. The search yielded 12 tools that measure overall integration or three or more indicator domains.

Discussion:

Our findings highlight a continued gap in tools to measure foundational components that support integrated care. In the absence of such targeted tools, “overall integration” tools may be useful for a broad assessment of the overall state of a system.

Conclusions:

Continued progress towards integrated care depends on our ability to evaluate the success of strategies across different levels and context. This study has identified 114 tools that measure integrated care across 16 domains, supporting efforts towards a unified measurement framework.

The use of concept mapping in measurement development and evaluation: Application and future directions

The past decade has seen an increase of measurement development research in social and health sciences that featured the use of concept mapping as a core technique. The purpose, application, and utility of concept mapping have varied across this emerging literature. Despite the variety of uses and range of outputs, little has been done to critically review how researchers have approached the application of concept mapping in the measurement development and evaluation process. This article focuses on a review of the current state of practice regarding the use of concept mapping as methodological tool in this process. We systematically reviewed 23 scale or measure development and evaluation studies, and detail the application of concept mapping in the context of traditional measurement development and psychometric testing processes. Although several limitations surfaced, we found several strengths in the contemporary application of the method. We determined concept mapping provides (a) a solid method for establishing content validity, (b) facilitates researcher decision-making, (c) insight into target population perspectives that are integrated a priori, and (d) a foundation for analytical and interpretative choices. Based on these results, we outline how concept mapping can be situated in the measurement development and evaluation processes for new instrumentation.

Cancer patient experience measures: An evidence review

OBJECTIVES

This research investigates the instruments currently available to measure the cancer patient experience of health care. An investigation of the number of instruments, the domains covered by the instruments, and the structure and psychometric performance of instruments is undertaken.

METHODS

A narrative synthesis approach is used to gather evidence from multiple studies and explain the findings. Purposely broad search terms and strategies are used to capture studies with cancer patients at all stages of disease and across a range of cancer types and health care settings.

RESULTS

The majority of identified instruments were originally designed for the oncology field. Twelve of the studies developed new cancer patient measures; eight studies adapted existing or utilized items from existing instruments, and seven studies assessed the psychometric properties of existing instruments or assessed validated tools under different conditions (e.g., cross-cultural adaptation). The number of instruments assessing cancer patient experience that have sound psychometric properties across items was found to be low. The properties least tested are test-retest reliability, construct, convergent and discriminant validity, scale variability (floor/ceiling effects), and interpretability.

CONCLUSION

This review examined 10 years of research on the development of instruments to measure the cancer patient experience of health care. It found that research in this area is still in early stages of development. Further inquiry based on development and validation of cancer patient experience measures is required to support improvements in cancer care based on the perspective of cancer patients.

Cancer patients' preferences of care within hospitals: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

Knowledge about cancer patients' preferences in health care is important because it enables care to be patient centered. However, the literature does not provide an overview. The aim of this study was to identify the dimensions of hospital-based cancer care that patients evaluate the most important using Patient-rated importance as a method.

DATA SOURCE

PubMed was searched in 2013/2014.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were identified, if they were in accordance with specific search terms and focused on hospital-based cancer care. Totally, 11 studies were found.

DATA EXTRACTION

The 11 studies comprised a total of 598 items. Of these, 592 items were categorized into 19 care dimensions. The highest rated quartile of items was identified as care elements patients evaluated to be the most important. Identification of the most important dimensions was done by calculating the percentages of items within each dimension that were within the highest quartile.

RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

The 11 studies varied a lot in regard to aim and patient characteristics. The three most important dimensions were as follows: Rapid diagnosis and treatment; High professional standard; and Information about treatment and side(effects)/consequences. Within four dimensions, Psychosocial support, Physical facilities, Waiting time and Transparency in care, no items were within the highest quartile.

CONCLUSION

Patient-rated importance was a useful method in identifying the care patients preferred. Due to a limited number of studies and great diversity within studies evaluated, interpretation of results should be cautious. However, it seems that cancer patients treated in hospitals with a curative intent find treatment-related information, professional standard and short delay of diagnosis and treatment most important.

Are we missing the Institute of Medicine's mark? A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures assessing quality of patient-centred cancer care

BACKGROUND

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has endorsed six dimensions of patient-centredness as crucial to providing quality healthcare. These dimensions outline that care must be: 1) respectful to patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs; 2) coordinated and integrated; 3) provide information, communication, and education; 4) ensure physical comfort; 5) provide emotional support-relieving fear and anxiety; and 6) involve family and friends. However, whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) comprehensively cover these dimensions remains unexplored. This systematic review examined whether PROMs designed to assess the quality of patient-centred cancer care addressed all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and the psychometric properties of these measures.

METHODS

Medline, PsycINFO, Current Contents, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus were searched to retrieve published studies describing the development and psychometric properties of PROMs assessing the quality of patient-centred cancer care. Two authors determined if eligible PROMs included the six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and evaluated the adequacy of psychometric properties based on recommended criteria for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, face/content validity, construct validity and cross-cultural adaptation.

RESULTS

Across all 21 PROMs, the most commonly included IOM dimension of patient-centred care was "information, communication and education" (19 measures). In contrast, only five measures assessed the "involvement of family and friends." Two measures included one IOM-endorsed patient-centred care dimension, two measures had two dimensions, seven measures had three dimensions, five measures had four dimensions, and four measures had five dimensions. One measure, the Indicators (Non-small Cell Lung Cancer), covered all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care, but had adequate face/content validity only. Eighteen measures met the recommended adequacy criteria for construct validity, 15 for face/content validity, seven for internal consistency, three for cross-cultural adaptation and no measure for test-retest reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no psychometrically rigorous PROMs developed with cancer patients that capture all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care. Using more than one measure or expanding existing measures to cover all six patient-centred care dimensions could improve assessment and delivery of patient-centred care. Construction of new comprehensive measures with acceptable psychometric properties that can be used with the general cancer population may also be warranted.

Nonverbal communication and conversational contribution in breast cancer genetic counseling: are counselors' nonverbal communication and conversational contribution associated with counselees' satisfaction, needs fulfillment and state anxiety in breast cancer genetic counseling?

OBJECTIVE

The current study aimed to examine how counselors' nonverbal communication (i.e. nonverbal encouragements and counselee-directed eye gaze) and conversational contribution (i.e. verbal dominance and interactivity) during the final visit within breast cancer genetic counseling relate to counselee satisfaction, needs fulfillment and anxiety.

METHODS

Breast cancer counselees (N=85) completed questionnaires measuring satisfaction, needs fulfillment and anxiety after the final consultation and anxiety before the initial visit. Consultations were videotaped. Counselor nonverbal encouragements and counselee-directed eye gaze were coded. Verbal dominance and interactivity were measured using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS).

RESULTS

More counselor nonverbal encouragements and higher counselor verbal dominance were both significantly related to higher post-visit anxiety. Furthermore, counselor verbal dominance was associated with lower perceived needs fulfillment. No significant associations with eye gaze and interactivity were found.

CONCLUSION

More research is needed on the relationship between nonverbal encouragements and anxiety. Given the unfavorable association of counselor verbal dominance with anxiety and needs fulfillment, more effort could be devoted to involve counselees in the dialog and reduce the counselor's verbal contribution during the consultation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Interventions focused on increasing counselees' contribution in the consultation may be beneficial to counselees.

Sustainability of healthcare innovations (SUSHI): long term effects of two implemented surgical care programmes (protocol)

Background

Two healthcare innovations were successfully implemented using different implementation strategies. First, a Short Stay Programme for breast cancer surgery (MaDO) was implemented in four early adopter hospitals, using a hospital-tailored implementation strategy. Second, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme for colonic surgery was implemented in 33 Dutch hospitals, using a generic breakthrough implementation strategy. Both strategies resulted in a shorter hospital length of stay without a decrease in quality of care. Currently, it is unclear to what extent these innovative programmes and their results have been sustained three to five years following implementation. The aim of the sustainability of healthcare innovations (SUSHI) study is to analyse sustainability and its determinants using two implementation cases.

Methods

This observational study uses a mixed methods approach. The study will be performed in 14 hospitals in the Netherlands, from November 2010. For both implementation cases, the programme aspects and the effects will be evaluated by means of a follow-up measurement in 160 patients who underwent breast cancer surgery and 300 patients who underwent colonic surgery. A policy cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective will be performed prospectively for the Short Stay Programme for breast cancer surgery in 160 patients. To study determinants of sustainability key professionals in the multidisciplinary care processes and implementation change agents will be interviewed using semi-structured interviews.

Discussion

The concept of sustainability is not commonly studied in implementation science. The SUSHI study will provide insight in to what extent the short-term implementation benefits have been maintained and in the determinants of long-term continuation of programme activities.

Development and feasibility of a set of quality indicators relative to the timeliness and organisation of care for new breast cancer patients undergoing surgery

BACKGROUND

Because breast cancer is a major public health issue, it is particularly important to measure the quality of the care provided to patients. Survival rates are affected by the timeliness of care, and waiting times constitute key quality criteria. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a set of quality indicators (QIs) relative to the timeliness and organisation of care in new patients with infiltrating, non-inflammatory and metastasis-free breast cancer undergoing surgery. The ultimate aim was to use these QIs to compare hospitals.

METHODS

The method of QI construction and testing was developed by COMPAQ-HPST. We first derived a set of 8 QIs from consensus guidelines with the aid of experts and professional associations and then tested their metrological properties in a panel of 60 volunteer hospitals. We assessed feasibility using a grid exploring 5 dimensions, discriminatory power using the Gini coefficient as a measure of dispersion, and inter-observer reliability using the Kappa coefficient.

RESULTS

Overall, 3728 records were included in the analyses. All 8 QIs showed acceptable feasibility (but one QI was subject to misinterpretation), fairly strong agreement between observers (Kappa = 0.66), and wide variations in implementation among hospitals (Gini coefficient < 0.45 except for QI 6 (patient information)). They are thus suitable for use to compare hospitals and measure quality improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the 8 QIs, 3 are ready for nationwide implementation (time to surgery, time to postoperative multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM), conformity of MDTM). Four are suitable for use only in hospitals offering surgery with on-site postoperative treatment (waiting time to first appointment after surgery, patient information, time to first postoperative treatment, and traceability of information relating to prognosis). Currently, in the French healthcare system, a patient receives cancer care from different institutions whose databases cannot as yet be easily merged. Nationwide implementation of QIs covering the entire care pathway will thus be a challenge.

Are health care professionals able to judge cancer patients' health care preferences correctly? A cross-sectional study

Background

Health care for cancer patients is primarily shaped by health care professionals. This raises the question to what extent health care professionals are aware of patients' preferences, needs and values.

The aim of this study was to explore to what extent there is concordance between patients' preferences in cancer care and patients' preferences as estimated by health care professionals. We also examined whether there were gender differences between health care professionals with regard to the degree in which they can estimate patients' preferences correctly.

Methods

To obtain unbiased insight into the specific preferences of cancer patients, we developed the 'Cancer patients' health care preferences' questionnaire'. With this questionnaire we assessed a large sample of cancer patients (n = 386). Next, we asked health care professionals (medical oncologists, nurses and policymakers, n = 60) to fill out this questionnaire and to indicate preferences they thought cancer patients would have. Mean scores between groups were compared using Mann-Whitney tests. Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated for statistically significant differences.

Results

We found significant differences (ESs 0.31 to 0.90) between patients and professionals for eight out of twenty-one scales and two out of eight single items. Patients valued care aspects related to expertise and attitude of health care providers and accessibility of services as more important than the professionals thought they would do. Health care professionals overestimated the value that patients set on particularly organisational and environmental aspects.

We found significant gender-related differences between the professionals (ESs 0.69 to 1.39 ) for eight out of twenty-one scales and two out of eight single items. When there were significant differences between male and female healthcare professionals in their estimation of patients health care preferences, female health care professionals invariably had higher scores. Generally, female health care professionals did not estimate patients' preferences and needs better than their male colleagues.

Conclusions

Health care professionals are reasonably well able to make a correct estimation of patients preferences, but they should be aware of their own bias and use additional resources to gain a better understanding of patients' specific preferences for each patient is different and ultimately the care needs and preferences will also be unique to the person.

Do patient experiences on priority aspects of health care predict their global rating of quality of care? A study in five patient groups

BACKGROUND

Patient-given global ratings are frequently interpreted as summary measures of the patient perspective, with limited understanding of what these ratings summarize. Global ratings may be determined by patient experiences on priority aspects of care.

OBJECTIVES

(i) identify patient priorities regarding elements of care for breast cancer, hip- or knee surgery, cataract surgery, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes, (ii) establish whether experiences regarding priorities are associated with patient-given global ratings, and (iii) determine whether patient experiences regarding priorities are better predictors of global ratings than experiences concerning less important aspects of care.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Data collected for the development of five consumer quality index surveys - disease-specific questionnaires that capture patient experiences and priorities - were used.

RESULTS

Priorities varied: breast cancer patients for example, prioritized rapid access to care and diagnostics, while diabetics favoured dignity and appropriate frequency of tests. Experiences regarding priorities were inconsistently related to global ratings of care. Regression analyses indicated that demographics explain 2.4-8.4% of the variance in global rating. Introducing patient experiences regarding priorities increased the variance explained to 21.1-35.1%; models with less important aspects of care explained 11.8-23.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Some experiences regarding priorities are strongly related to the global rating while others are poorly related. Global ratings are marginally dependent on demographics, and experiences regarding priorities are somewhat better predictors of global rating than experiences regarding less important elements. As it remains to be fully determined what global ratings summarize, caution is warranted when using these ratings as summary measures.

Medical oncology patients' preferences with regard to health care: development of a patient-driven questionnaire

BACKGROUND

To improve quality of care for cancer patients, it is important to have an insight on the patient's view on health care and on their specific wishes, needs and preferences, without restriction and without influence of researchers and health care providers. The aim of this study was to develop a questionnaire assessing medical oncology patients' preferences for health care based on their own input.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Items were generated using 10 focus group interviews with 51 cancer patients. A preliminary questionnaire was handed out to 681 patients of seven Dutch departments of medical oncology. Explorative factor analysis was carried out on the 386 returned questionnaires (response 57%).

RESULTS

Focus group interviews resulted in a preliminary questionnaire containing 136 items. Explorative factor analysis resulted in a definitive questionnaire containing 123 items (21 scales and eight single items). Patients rated expertise, safety, performance and attitude of physicians and nurses as the most important issues in cancer care.

CONCLUSION

This questionnaire may be used to assess preferences of cancer patients and to come to a tailored approach of health care that meets patients' wishes and needs.

Towards more patient centred healthcare: A new Consumer Quality Index instrument to assess patients' experiences with breast care

OBJECTIVE

To develop a Consumer Quality Index (CQ-index) Breast Care instrument that measures quality of care from the perspective of patients with (suspicion of) breast cancer.

METHODS

To develop a pilot questionnaire, three focus group discussions with breast cancer patients were performed. The questionnaire was sent to 1197 patients. We performed psychometric and descriptive analyses to optimise the new instrument.

RESULTS

Focus group discussions revealed nine main themes related to breast care quality. Psychometric analyses resulted in 15 reliable scales. The final instrument consisted of 152 items, of which 118 items regarded patients' experiences. The aspect with the highest need for quality improvement was informing patients about a second opinion.

CONCLUSION

The CQ-index Breast Care (CQI-BC) instrument provides a good starting point for further research on the quality of breast care seen from the perspective of patients. The newly developed instrument can be used by different stakeholders for future quality monitoring.

Introduction of a breast cancer care programme including ultra short hospital stay in 4 early adopter centres: framework for an implementation study

Background

Whereas ultra-short stay (day care or 24 hour hospitalisation) following breast cancer surgery was introduced in the US and Canada in the 1990s, it is not yet common practice in Europe. This paper describes the design of the MaDO study, which involves the implementation of ultra short stay admission for patients after breast cancer surgery, and evaluates whether the targets of the implementation strategy are reached. The ultra short stay programme and the applied implementation strategy will be evaluated from the economic perspective.

Methods/design

The MaDO study is a pre-post-controlled multi-centre study, that is performed in four hospitals in the Netherlands. It includes a pre and post measuring period of six months each with six months of implementation in between in at least 40 patients per hospital per measurement period.

Primary outcome measure is the percentage of patients treated in ultra short stay. Secondary endpoints are the percentage of patients treated according to protocol, degree of involvement of home care nursing, quality of care from the patient's perspective, cost-effectiveness of the ultra short stay programme and cost-effectiveness of the implementation strategy. Quality of care will be measured by the QUOTE-breast cancer instrument, cost-effectiveness of the ultra short stay programme will be measured by means of the EuroQol (administered at four time-points) and a cost book for patients. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a societal perspective. Cost-effectiveness of the implementation strategy will be measured by determination of the costs of implementation activities.

Discussion

This study will reveal barriers and facilitators for implementation of the ultra short stay programme. Moreover, the results of the study will provide information about the cost-effectiveness of the ultra short stay programme and the implementation strategy.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77253391.