A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Ambulatory Oncology Experience by Treatment Intent

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.

Quantifying the Impact of Family Doctors on the Care Experiences of Patients with Cancer: Exploring Evidence from the 2021 Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey in Alberta, Canada

Oncology programs across Canada are reaching capacity as more Canadians are diagnosed with and treated for cancer each year. There is an increasing need to share care with family doctors, however it is unclear how this type of care impacts patient experiences, particularly while receiving active treatment. Retrospective data from the 2021 Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey (AOPSS) in Alberta, Canada was used in this study. A unique question on the Alberta survey asks patients about their family doctor's involvement during their cancer care. Patient satisfaction across the six domains of person-centred care on the AOPSS was analyzed based on how involved a patient's family doctor was. Compared to patients who indicated their family doctor was "Not involved", patients with "Very involved" family doctors had significantly higher satisfaction scores in all six domains of care. The three domains which showed the largest positive impact of family doctor involvement were: Coordination & Integration of Care, Emotional Concerns, and Information, Communication & Education. The results demonstrate that involving family doctors in cancer care can be beneficial for patients. Based on the observed satisfaction increases in this study, shared care models may be preferred by many patients. These models of care can also help alleviate strain and capacity issues within cancer programs. The results could be used to support recommendations for cancer care teams to regularly involve and communicate with family doctors, to ensure that patients receive comprehensive and tailored care from all their health care providers.

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

The extent to which individual and structural factors influence cancer patients' reports of their experiences are not yet well understood. We sought to identify which groups of patients consistently report poorer experiences and whether structural care factors might also be associated with better or worse reports. We conducted a systematic review of literature in PubMed and Web of Science with the date of last search as 27th of February 2022 following PRISMA guidelines. We focused on studies from three established population-based surveys datasets and instruments. After screening 303 references, 54 studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, being from an ethnic minority group, having a more deprived socioeconomic status, poorer general or mental health status, being diagnosed with poor prognosis cancers, presenting to care through an emergency route, and having delayed treatment were consistently associated with poorer cancer care experiences. Conversely being diagnosed with earlier stage disease, perceiving communication as effective, positive patient-provider relationships, and receiving treatment with respect were overall associated with better reports of cancer care experiences. Improvement efforts aimed at delivering better experiences of patient-centred care need to take account much more explicitly patients' differing characteristics, prognoses, and trajectories they take through their care journeys.

Comparison of Patient-Reported Experience of Patients Receiving Radiotherapy Measured by Two Validated Surveys

Patient-reported experience is associated with improved patient safety and clinical outcomes. Quality improvement programs rely on validated patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) to design projects. This descriptive study compares the experience of cancer patients treated with radiation as recorded through the Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey (AOPSS) or as recorded through Your Voice Matters (YVM) between February and August 2019. Six questions were compared (“overall experience with care”, “discussion of worries”, “involvement in decisions”, “trusting providers with confidential information”, “providing family with information”, and “knowing who to contact”). Positive experience scores were calculated by cohort and by tumor groups. Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated factors associated with positive experience. Two cohorts (220 and 200 patients) met the eligibility criteria for the AOPSS and YVM, respectively. Positive experience was reported similarly between the two PREMs for “overall experience with care”, “discussion of worries”, and “trusting providers with confidential information” with a score difference of 1–4% at the cohort level. Positive experience score difference ranged from 5% to 44% across questions at the tumor group level. Different experience gaps were identified with the two measures, mainly at the tumor group level. Programs interested in using these PREMS might consider this when designing projects.