Literature DB >> 24341422

Cancer patient experience, hospital performance and case mix: evidence from England.

Gary A Abel1, Catherine L Saunders, Georgios Lyratzopoulos.   

Abstract

AIMS: This study aims to explore differences between crude and case mix-adjusted estimates of hospital performance with respect to the experience of cancer patients. MATERIALS &
METHODS: This study analyzed the English 2011/2012 Cancer Patient Experience Survey covering all English National Health Service hospitals providing cancer treatment (n = 160). Logistic regression analysis was used to predict hospital performance for each of the 64 evaluative questions, adjusting for age, gender, ethnic group and cancer diagnosis. The degree of reclassification was explored across three categories (bottom 20%, middle 60% and top 20% of hospitals).
RESULTS: There was high concordance between crude and adjusted ranks of hospitals (median Kendall's τ = 0.84; interquartile range: 0.82-0.88). Across all questions, a median of 5.0% (eight) of hospitals (interquartile range: 3.8-6.4%; six to ten hospitals) moved out of the extreme performance categories after case mix adjustment.
CONCLUSION: In this context, patient case mix has only a small impact on measured hospital performance for cancer patient experience.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cancer; case mix adjustment; disparity; inequality; organizational quality; patient experience; public reporting; satisfaction

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24341422     DOI: 10.2217/fon.13.266

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Future Oncol        ISSN: 1479-6694            Impact factor:   3.404


  11 in total

1.  Differences between Proxy and Patient Assessments of Cancer Care Experiences and Quality Ratings.

Authors:  Jessica K Roydhouse; Roee Gutman; Nancy L Keating; Vincent Mor; Ira B Wilson
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Measuring patient experience: concepts and methods.

Authors:  Faraz Ahmed; Jenni Burt; Martin Roland
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Inequalities in reported cancer patient experience by socio-demographic characteristic and cancer site: evidence from respondents to the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

Authors:  C L Saunders; G A Abel; G Lyratzopoulos
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2014-10-18       Impact factor: 2.520

4.  Insights into the experiences of patients with cancer in London: framework analysis of free-text data from the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey 2012/2013 from the two London Integrated Cancer Systems.

Authors:  Theresa Wiseman; Grace Lucas; Amrit Sangha; Anuska Randolph; Sarah Stapleton; Natalie Pattison; Geraldine O'Gara; Katherine Harris; Kathy Pritchard-Jones; Shelley Dolan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Missing data and chance variation in public reporting of cancer stage at diagnosis: Cross-sectional analysis of population-based data in England.

Authors:  Matthew E Barclay; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; David C Greenberg; Gary A Abel
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2017-11-23       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  Reliability of hospital scores for the Cancer Patient Experience Survey: analysis of publicly reported patient survey data.

Authors:  Gary A Abel; Mayam Gomez-Cano; Tra My Pham; Georgios Lyratzopoulos
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Workforce predictive risk modelling: development of a model to identify general practices at risk of a supply-demand imbalance.

Authors:  Gary A Abel; Mayam Gomez-Cano; Navonil Mustafee; Andi Smart; Emily Fletcher; Chris Salisbury; Rupa Chilvers; Sarah Gerard Dean; Suzanne H Richards; F Warren; John L Campbell
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-01-23       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Do Differential Response Rates to Patient Surveys Between Organizations Lead to Unfair Performance Comparisons?: Evidence From the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

Authors:  Catherine L Saunders; Marc N Elliott; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Gary A Abel
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Post-sampling mortality and non-response patterns in the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey: Implications for epidemiological studies based on surveys of cancer patients.

Authors:  Gary A Abel; Catherine L Saunders; Georgios Lyratzopoulos
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2016-01-18       Impact factor: 2.984

10.  Population trends in emergency cancer diagnoses: The role of changing patient case-mix.

Authors:  A Herbert; S Winters; S McPhail; L Elliss-Brookes; G Lyratzopoulos; G A Abel
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 2.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.