Toward patient-centered cancer care: patient perceptions of problematic events, impact, and response
Authors
Mazor, Kathleen M.Roblin, Douglas W.
Greene, Sarah M.
Lemay, Celeste A.
Firneno, Cassandra L.
Calvi, Josephine
Prouty, Carolyn D.
Horner, Kathryn
Gallagher, Thomas H.
UMass Chan Affiliations
Center for Health Policy and Research, Office of Community ProgramsMeyers Primary Care Institute
Document Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2012-05-20Keywords
AdultCooperative Behavior
Delivery of Health Care, Integrated
*Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Health Maintenance Organizations
Humans
Interviews as Topic
Male
Medical Errors
Medical Oncology
Middle Aged
Neoplasms
Organizational Objectives
Patient Care Team
Patient Safety
Patient-Centered Care
Patients
*Perception
Physician-Patient Relations
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Treatment Outcome
United States
Young Adult
Health Services Research
Primary Care
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
PURPOSE: Cancer treatments are complex, involving multiple clinicians, toxic therapies, and uncertain outcomes. Consequently, patients are vulnerable when breakdowns in care occur. This study explored cancer patients' perceptions of preventable, harmful events; the impact of these events; and interactions with clinicians after such events. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In-depth telephone interviews were conducted with cancer patients from three clinical sites. Patients were eligible if they believed: something "went wrong" during their cancer care; the event could have been prevented; and the event caused, or could have caused, significant harm. Interviews focused on patients' perceptions of the event, its impact, and clinicians' responses to the event. RESULTS: Ninety-three of 416 patients queried believed something had gone wrong in their care that was preventable and caused or could have caused harm. Seventy-eight patients completed interviews. Of those interviewed, 28% described a problem with medical care, such as a delay in diagnosis or treatment; 47% described a communication problem, including problems with information exchange or manner; and 24% described problems with both medical care and communication. Perceived harms included physical and emotional harm, disruption of life, effect on family members, damaged physician-patient relationship, and financial expense. Few clinicians initiated discussion of the problematic events. Most patients did not formally report their concerns. CONCLUSION: Cancer patients who believe they experienced a preventable, harmful event during their cancer diagnosis or care often do not formally report their concerns. Systems are needed to encourage patients to report such events and to help physicians and health care systems respond effectively.Source
J Clin Oncol. 2012 May 20;30(15):1784-90. Epub 2012 Apr 16. Link to article on publisher's site
DOI
10.1200/JCO.2011.38.1384Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/37159PubMed ID
22508828Related Resources
Link to Article in PubMedae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1200/JCO.2011.38.1384
Scopus Count
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Patient-Specific E-mailed Discharge Instructions Improve Patient Satisfaction and Patient Understanding After Surgical ArthroscopySantoro, Adam J; Ford, Elizabeth A; Pontes, Manuel; Busconi, Brian D; McMillan, Sean (2022-06-11)Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine whether patient-specific e-mails after surgical arthroscopy improve patient satisfaction and patient understanding of their procedure compared to traditional, preprinted discharge instructions. Methods: Sixty patients who underwent surgical arthroscopy were prospectively, randomized into two separate groups. One cohort received a detailed e-mail of their procedure, discharge instructions, and labeled intraoperative arthroscopic images, while the second cohort received the standard preprinted instructions, while their arthroscopic images were discussed at the time of follow-up. The procedures were performed by a single surgeon. All patients were seen at 1-week follow-up and given a 14-question survey specific to their postoperative course, discharge instructions, and overall satisfaction using a 5-point Likert Scale. Demographic information was collected and data points comparing overall patient satisfaction, ease of understanding instructions, quality of information, and the number of times referenced were analyzed using nonparametric tests between the two cohorts. Results: Patients in the e-mail cohort were significantly more satisfied with their surgery than patients in the printed cohort (medians: 5 versus 4, Wilcoxon chi-square = 9.98; P =.002). Patients in the e-mail cohort indicated that their instructions more greatly enhanced their overall understanding of their surgery (medians: 5 vs 3, Wilcoxon chi-square = 10.84; P = .001) and were more helpful to their recovery (medians: 5 vs 3, Wilcoxon chi-square = 7.37; P = .007). E-mail patients were significantly more likely to recommend similar instructions be sent to a friend undergoing surgery (medians: 5 versus 3, Wilcoxon chi-square = 11.10; P < .001) and share their instructions with others 72% (18/25) versus 34.5% (10/29). There was no significant difference between the e-mail cohort and the print cohort for the number of times patients referred to their instructions (medians: 3 versus 3, Wilcoxon chi-square = 2.41; P =.121). Conclusions: Patient-specific e-mailed discharge instructions improve patient satisfaction and overall understanding of the procedure compared with traditional printed discharge instructions after surgical arthroscopy. Level of evidence: Level II, prospective randomized trial.
-
Patient prioritization of comorbid chronic conditions in the Veteran population: Implications for patient-centered careRichardson, Lorilei M.; Hill, Jennifer N.; Smith, Bridget M.; Bauer, Erica D.; Weaver, Frances M.; Gordon, Howard S.; Stroupe, Kevin T.; Hogan, Timothy P. (2016-11-29)OBJECTIVE: Patients with comorbid chronic conditions may prioritize some conditions over others; however, our understanding of factors influencing those prioritizations is limited. In this study, we sought to identify and elaborate a range of factors that influence how and why patients with comorbid chronic conditions prioritize their conditions. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with 33 patients with comorbidities recruited from a single Veterans Health Administration Medical Center. FINDINGS: The diverse factors influencing condition prioritization reflected three overarching themes: (1) the perceived role of a condition in the body, (2) self-management tasks, and (3) pain. In addition to these themes, participants described the rankings that they believed their healthcare providers would assign to their conditions as an influencing factor, although few reported having shared their priorities or explicitly talking with providers about the importance of their conditions. CONCLUSION: Studies that advance understanding of how and why patients prioritize their various conditions are essential to providing care that is patient-centered, reflecting what matters most to the individual while improving their health. This analysis informs guideline development efforts for the care of patients with comorbid chronic conditions as well as the creation of tools to promote patient-provider communication regarding the importance placed on different conditions.
-
Do Patient Outcomes Vary by Patient Age Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty?Ayers, David C; Yousef, Mohamed; Zheng, Hua; Yang, Wenyun; Franklin, Patricia D (2022-05-31)Background: Multiple authors have sought to determine what patient characteristics influence outcome after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Age has shown no effect on outcome in some evaluations, while others have reported higher functional improvement in younger patients. The aim of this study was to determine if outcome after THA varies based on patient age. Methods: A prospective, multicenter cohort of 7,934 unilateral primary THA patients from the FORCE-TJR comparative effectiveness consortium was evaluated. Demographic data, comorbid conditions, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, including (HOOS), HOOS-12, HOOS JR, and SF-36 (PCS) and (MCS), were collected preop and at 1-year postop. Descriptive statistics were generated, stratified by age (<55 years [younger adult], 55-64 years [older adult], 65-74 years [early elder], and ≥75 years [late elder]), and differences in pain, function, and quality of life among the 4 age groups were evaluated. A multivariate regression model with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the role of patient age as a predictive factor for HOOS pain and function scores reported 1 year after primary THA. Results: Prior to surgery, younger patients (<55 years) reported worse pain, function, and quality of life than the other 3 patient groups. At 1 year after THA, younger patients (<55 years) reported slightly worse pain and quality of life but better function scores than the 3 older patients' groups. Younger patients (<55 years) achieved higher baseline to 1-year pain, and function score changes when compared to the older patients' groups. The quality of life score changes was not different among the 4 age groups. The differences in 1-year postop scores (ranging from 2.74 to 8.46) and the magnitude of score changes from baseline to 1 year (ranging from 1.9 to 5.85), although statistically significant (P < .001), did not reach the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). The multivariate regression analysis shows that age is a significant predictor for pain at 1 year but not for function. Although HOOS pain score is predicted to be higher by 4.38 points (less pain) 1 year after THA in older patients (≥75), when compared to younger patients (<55 years), again the difference is well below the MCID and is clinically insignificant. Conclusion: Although there are statistically significant differences in pain relief, functional improvement, and quality of life between younger and older patients among different patients' age groups, there is no clinically significant difference. THA provides an improvement in quality of life by decreasing pain and increasing function in all 4 age groups, with large improvements in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures scores (>2 standard deviations) without clinically significant age-related differences in THA outcome at 1 year.