Ivana Durcinoska1,2, Jane M Young1,2,3, Michael J Solomon2,3. 1. Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Surgical Outcomes Research Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Institute of Academic Surgery, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improving care coordination is a key priority for health services. The aims of this study were to identify patient- and health service-related predictors of poorly coordinated care and to explore patient preferences to assist care coordination. METHODS: Patients with incident colorectal cancer, identified from a state-wide cancer registry, completed a self-report questionnaire 6 to 8 months after their diagnosis. Care coordination was assessed with the Cancer Care Coordination Questionnaire for Patients. Multiple linear regression models were used to predict factors associated with a poor experience with cancer care coordination. RESULTS: Among 560 patients (56% response rate), care coordination experiences were normally distributed (mean score, 76.1; standard deviation, 10.9). Patients who had 3 or more comorbid conditions (β, -4.56; standard error [SE], 1.46; P = .006), little or no understanding of the health system (β, -4.34; SE, 0.94; P < .001), and no regular general practitioner (GP; β, -4.09; SE, 2.07; P = .049) experienced poorer care coordination. At the health service level, patients who did not receive a written pretreatment plan (β, -4.15; SE, 0.95; P < .001) or did not see a cancer care coordinator (β, -3.29; SE, 1.03; P = .001) had lower scores. The most preferred resources included information packs (92%), written care plans (88%), and improved access to their own personal medical records (electronic, 86; paper, 84%), with most patients preferring a shared GP and surgeon care model. CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in experiences across the state. The factors associated with lower scores provide a focus for targeted strategies for improving patients' experience with colorectal cancer care coordination. Cancer 2017;123:319-326.
BACKGROUND: Improving care coordination is a key priority for health services. The aims of this study were to identify patient- and health service-related predictors of poorly coordinated care and to explore patient preferences to assist care coordination. METHODS:Patients with incident colorectal cancer, identified from a state-wide cancer registry, completed a self-report questionnaire 6 to 8 months after their diagnosis. Care coordination was assessed with the Cancer Care Coordination Questionnaire for Patients. Multiple linear regression models were used to predict factors associated with a poor experience with cancer care coordination. RESULTS: Among 560 patients (56% response rate), care coordination experiences were normally distributed (mean score, 76.1; standard deviation, 10.9). Patients who had 3 or more comorbid conditions (β, -4.56; standard error [SE], 1.46; P = .006), little or no understanding of the health system (β, -4.34; SE, 0.94; P < .001), and no regular general practitioner (GP; β, -4.09; SE, 2.07; P = .049) experienced poorer care coordination. At the health service level, patients who did not receive a written pretreatment plan (β, -4.15; SE, 0.95; P < .001) or did not see a cancer care coordinator (β, -3.29; SE, 1.03; P = .001) had lower scores. The most preferred resources included information packs (92%), written care plans (88%), and improved access to their own personal medical records (electronic, 86; paper, 84%), with most patients preferring a shared GP and surgeon care model. CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in experiences across the state. The factors associated with lower scores provide a focus for targeted strategies for improving patients' experience with colorectal cancer care coordination. Cancer 2017;123:319-326.
Authors: Vanessa L Beesley; Matthew Burge; Monica Dumbrava; Jack Callum; Rachel E Neale; David K Wyld Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jane M Young; Rebecca L Venchiarutti; Ivana Durcinoska; Daniel Steffens Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 2.711