Patients’ perspectives on the quality of care of a new complex psycho-oncological care programme in Germany – external mixed methods evaluation results

BACKGROUND: Guideline-compliant provision of psycho-oncological (PO) care is still challenging in Germany. Hence, a new care programme, called integrated cross-sectoral psycho-oncology (isPO), was implemented to improve the integration of needs-oriented PO care. Quality of care (QoC) was externally evaluated from the patient’s perspective. We aim to gain insight into patients’ experiences with isPO and how their assessment affects relevant patient-reported outcomes (anxiety and depression, health status, and work ability). METHODS: An explanatory, sequential mixed-methods design was applied. Patients were surveyed twice during their 1-year care trajectory: after 3 (T1) and 12 (T2) months. Data sets were matched using pseudonyms. Care documentation data, including sociodemographic characteristics and the primary outcome variable (anxiety and depression), were matched. In the survey, patients rated their satisfaction with respective isPO service providers and the programme in general (QoC). Health status (EORTC-QLQ-C30) and work ability (WAS) were measured. Descriptive analyses and t-tests for dependent samples were conducted to assess changes in outcome variables over time. Linear regression analyses were conducted to assess whether care satisfaction predicted outcome variables. Patients who completed their isPO care trajectory were asked to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews to share their experiences. Purposeful sampling was applied. All 23 interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analysed via content-structuring method. RESULTS: Patients reported medium-to-high satisfaction with their isPO care. All patient-related outcomes significantly improved over time and QoC measures predicted those outcomes. Needs orientation (e.g., care intensity or mode of delivery) was perceived as essential for high QoC, and outpatient care with fixed contact persons as highly important for care continuity. Furthermore, patients identified programme optimisation needs, such as period of care or extension of care to relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Patients assessed the isPO programme’s QoC positively. They identified facilitators for QoC and optimisation needs. Therefore, data on QoC can function as an indicator for a programme’s feasibility and maturity within care reality. As patients’ care satisfaction positively influences important patient-related outcomes, it may be routinely considered for quality management. Based on patients’ perspectives, isPO seems to be recommendable for routine psycho-oncological care in Germany, if ongoing programme optimisation within structured quality management is guaranteed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (No. DRKS00015326) on 30.10.2018. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-023-09714-y.