Cargando…

What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey

OBJECTIVE: To explore why patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse experiences of care compared with those treated in other English regions. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the 2011/2012 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n=69 086). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Saunders, Catherine L, Abel, Gary A, Lyratzopoulos, Georgios
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3902336/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24390383
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004039
_version_ 1782300968798388224
author Saunders, Catherine L
Abel, Gary A
Lyratzopoulos, Georgios
author_facet Saunders, Catherine L
Abel, Gary A
Lyratzopoulos, Georgios
author_sort Saunders, Catherine L
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To explore why patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse experiences of care compared with those treated in other English regions. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the 2011/2012 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n=69 086). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with cancer treated by the English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 64 patient experience measures covering all aspects of cancer care (pre-diagnosis to discharge). METHODS: Using mixed effects logistic regression, we explored whether poorer scores in London hospitals could be explained by patient case-mix (age, gender, ethnicity and cancer type). Because patients referred to tertiary centres and/or with complex medical problems may report more critical experiences, we also explored whether the experiences reported in London may reflect higher concentration of teaching hospitals in the capital. Finally, using the data from the (general) Adult Inpatients Survey, we explored whether the extent of poorer experience reported by London patients was similar for respondents to either survey. RESULTS: For 52/64 questions, there was evidence of poorer experience in London, with the percentage of patients reporting a positive experience being lower compared with the rest of England by a median of 3.7% (IQR 2.5–5.4%). After case-mix adjustment there was still evidence for worse experience in London for 44/64 questions. In addition, adjusting for teaching hospital status made trivial difference to the case-mix-adjusted findings. There was evidence that London versus rest-of-England differences were greater for patients with cancer compared with (general) hospital inpatients for 10 of 16 questions in both the Cancer Patient Experience and the Adult Inpatients Surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse care experiences and by and large these differences are not explained by patient case-mix or teaching hospital status. Efforts to improve care in London should aim to meet patient expectations and improve care quality.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3902336
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39023362014-01-27 What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey Saunders, Catherine L Abel, Gary A Lyratzopoulos, Georgios BMJ Open Health Services Research OBJECTIVE: To explore why patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse experiences of care compared with those treated in other English regions. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the 2011/2012 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n=69 086). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with cancer treated by the English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 64 patient experience measures covering all aspects of cancer care (pre-diagnosis to discharge). METHODS: Using mixed effects logistic regression, we explored whether poorer scores in London hospitals could be explained by patient case-mix (age, gender, ethnicity and cancer type). Because patients referred to tertiary centres and/or with complex medical problems may report more critical experiences, we also explored whether the experiences reported in London may reflect higher concentration of teaching hospitals in the capital. Finally, using the data from the (general) Adult Inpatients Survey, we explored whether the extent of poorer experience reported by London patients was similar for respondents to either survey. RESULTS: For 52/64 questions, there was evidence of poorer experience in London, with the percentage of patients reporting a positive experience being lower compared with the rest of England by a median of 3.7% (IQR 2.5–5.4%). After case-mix adjustment there was still evidence for worse experience in London for 44/64 questions. In addition, adjusting for teaching hospital status made trivial difference to the case-mix-adjusted findings. There was evidence that London versus rest-of-England differences were greater for patients with cancer compared with (general) hospital inpatients for 10 of 16 questions in both the Cancer Patient Experience and the Adult Inpatients Surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse care experiences and by and large these differences are not explained by patient case-mix or teaching hospital status. Efforts to improve care in London should aim to meet patient expectations and improve care quality. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-01-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3902336/ /pubmed/24390383 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004039 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
spellingShingle Health Services Research
Saunders, Catherine L
Abel, Gary A
Lyratzopoulos, Georgios
What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey
title What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey
title_full What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey
title_fullStr What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey
title_full_unstemmed What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey
title_short What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey
title_sort what explains worse patient experience in london? evidence from secondary analysis of the cancer patient experience survey
topic Health Services Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3902336/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24390383
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004039
work_keys_str_mv AT saunderscatherinel whatexplainsworsepatientexperienceinlondonevidencefromsecondaryanalysisofthecancerpatientexperiencesurvey
AT abelgarya whatexplainsworsepatientexperienceinlondonevidencefromsecondaryanalysisofthecancerpatientexperiencesurvey
AT lyratzopoulosgeorgios whatexplainsworsepatientexperienceinlondonevidencefromsecondaryanalysisofthecancerpatientexperiencesurvey