PURPOSE: Because insurers use performance and quality metrics to inform reimbursement, identifying remediable causes of poor-quality cancer care is imperative. We undertook this descriptive cohort study to assess key predictors of women's perceived quality of their breast cancer care and actual guideline-concordant quality of care received. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We surveyed inner-city women with newly diagnosed and surgically treated early-stage breast cancer requiring adjuvant treatment who were enrolled onto a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patient assistance to reduce disparities in care. We assessed women's perceived quality of care and perceived quality of the process of getting care, such as getting referrals, test results, and treatments; we abstracted records to determine the actual quality of care. RESULTS: Of the 374 new patients with early-stage breast cancer enrolled onto the RCT, only a slight majority of women (55%) perceived their quality of care as excellent; 88% actually received good-quality, guideline-concordant care. Excellent perceived quality (P < .001) was significantly associated with patients' perception of the quality of the process of getting care (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.78; 95% CI, 1.65 to 1.87). Also associated with perceived quality-and mediated by race-were trust in one's physician (adjusted RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.64) and perceived racism, which affected black women more than women of other races/ethnicities (black race-adjusted RR for perceived racism, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.10 to 0.87]; black race-adjusted RR for trust, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.90]; c = 0.82 for the model; P < .001). Actual quality of care provided did not affect perceived quality of care received. CONCLUSION: Patients' perceived quality of care differs from their receipt of high-quality care. Mutable targets to improve perceived quality of care include the processes of getting care and trusting their physician.
PURPOSE: Because insurers use performance and quality metrics to inform reimbursement, identifying remediable causes of poor-quality cancer care is imperative. We undertook this descriptive cohort study to assess key predictors of women's perceived quality of their breast cancer care and actual guideline-concordant quality of care received. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We surveyed inner-city women with newly diagnosed and surgically treated early-stage breast cancer requiring adjuvant treatment who were enrolled onto a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patient assistance to reduce disparities in care. We assessed women's perceived quality of care and perceived quality of the process of getting care, such as getting referrals, test results, and treatments; we abstracted records to determine the actual quality of care. RESULTS: Of the 374 new patients with early-stage breast cancer enrolled onto the RCT, only a slight majority of women (55%) perceived their quality of care as excellent; 88% actually received good-quality, guideline-concordant care. Excellent perceived quality (P < .001) was significantly associated with patients' perception of the quality of the process of getting care (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.78; 95% CI, 1.65 to 1.87). Also associated with perceived quality-and mediated by race-were trust in one's physician (adjusted RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.64) and perceived racism, which affected black women more than women of other races/ethnicities (black race-adjusted RR for perceived racism, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.10 to 0.87]; black race-adjusted RR for trust, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.90]; c = 0.82 for the model; P < .001). Actual quality of care provided did not affect perceived quality of care received. CONCLUSION:Patients' perceived quality of care differs from their receipt of high-quality care. Mutable targets to improve perceived quality of care include the processes of getting care and trusting their physician.
Authors: Kevin J O'Leary; Diane B Wayne; Corinne Haviley; Maureen E Slade; Jungwha Lee; Mark V Williams Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michele Heisler; Reynard R Bouknight; Rodney A Hayward; Dylan M Smith; Eve A Kerr Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert Weech-Maldonado; Leo S Morales; Marc Elliott; Karen Spritzer; Grant Marshall; Ron D Hays Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Nynikka R A Palmer; Erin E Kent; Laura P Forsythe; Neeraj K Arora; Julia H Rowland; Noreen M Aziz; Danielle Blanch-Hartigan; Ingrid Oakley-Girvan; Ann S Hamilton; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Felisa A Gonzales; Meera Sangaramoorthy; Laura A Dwyer; Salma Shariff-Marco; Amani M Allen; Allison W Kurian; Juan Yang; Michelle M Langer; Laura Allen; Bryce B Reeve; Stephen H Taplin; Scarlett Lin Gomez Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Christine B Weldon; Sarah M Friedewald; Swati A Kulkarni; Melissa A Simon; Ruth C Carlos; Jonathan B Strauss; Mikele M Bunce; Art Small; Julia R Trosman Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Jason D Wright; Ana I Tergas; Cande V Ananth; William M Burke; Ling Chen; Alfred I Neugut; Catherine A Richards; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-01-24 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lydie A Lebrun-Harris; Leiyu Shi; Jinsheng Zhu; Matthew T Burke; Alek Sripipatana; Quyen Ngo-Metzger Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Kathryn E Weaver; Noreen M Aziz; Neeraj K Arora; Laura P Forsythe; Ann S Hamilton; Ingrid Oakley-Girvan; Gretchen Keel; Keith M Bellizzi; Julia H Rowland Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Johna K Register-Mihalik; Richelle M Williams; Stephen W Marshall; Laura A Linnan; Jason P Mihalik; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Tamara C Valovich McLeod Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 2.860