PURPOSE: Access to comparative information on hospitals' quality of cancer care is limited. Patients' interest in using this information when selecting a hospital for cancer surgery and the specific data they would desire are unknown. This study gauges patients' demand for comparative information on hospitals' quality of cancer surgery. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, national survey of 3,334 US residents who had received cancer surgery. The outcomes were patients' reported likelihood of using a list of best hospitals for cancer surgery and patients' reported interest in information about specific clinical outcomes, including 4-year survival after surgery, 30-day mortality after surgery, and rate of complications from surgery. RESULTS: Two thirds of patients (68%) reported being actively involved in selecting a hospital for their surgery, and two thirds (65%) reported that their physician was involved in or made this decision. When asked what information might have helped them to choose a hospital, participants identified the hospital's reputation (55%), patient satisfaction (44%), and the number of cancer surgeries performed at the hospital (36%). Approximately three quarters (73%) reported being likely to use a list of best hospitals for cancer surgery when selecting a hospital. Approximately 40% expressed interest in having information on at least one clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: Widespread interest exists among patients with cancer for comparative information on hospital quality as well as on clinical outcomes and hospitals' reputation for cancer surgery. Policy reforms and additional research should address the unmet need for transparent, comprehensive data on the quality of hospitals' cancer care.
PURPOSE: Access to comparative information on hospitals' quality of cancer care is limited. Patients' interest in using this information when selecting a hospital for cancer surgery and the specific data they would desire are unknown. This study gauges patients' demand for comparative information on hospitals' quality of cancer surgery. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, national survey of 3,334 US residents who had received cancer surgery. The outcomes were patients' reported likelihood of using a list of best hospitals for cancer surgery and patients' reported interest in information about specific clinical outcomes, including 4-year survival after surgery, 30-day mortality after surgery, and rate of complications from surgery. RESULTS: Two thirds of patients (68%) reported being actively involved in selecting a hospital for their surgery, and two thirds (65%) reported that their physician was involved in or made this decision. When asked what information might have helped them to choose a hospital, participants identified the hospital's reputation (55%), patient satisfaction (44%), and the number of cancer surgeries performed at the hospital (36%). Approximately three quarters (73%) reported being likely to use a list of best hospitals for cancer surgery when selecting a hospital. Approximately 40% expressed interest in having information on at least one clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: Widespread interest exists among patients with cancer for comparative information on hospital quality as well as on clinical outcomes and hospitals' reputation for cancer surgery. Policy reforms and additional research should address the unmet need for transparent, comprehensive data on the quality of hospitals' cancer care.
Authors: P J Marang-van de Mheen; J Dijs-Elsinga; W Otten; M Versluijs; H J Smeets; R Vree; W J van der Made; J Kievit Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2011 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Tracy E Spinks; Ronald Walters; Thomas W Feeley; Heidi Wied Albright; Victoria S Jordan; John Bingham; Thomas W Burke Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: David M Shahian; Fred H Edwards; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Richard L Prager; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Cynthia M Shewan; Sean M O'Brien; Eric D Peterson; Frederick L Grover Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Allison Lipitz-Snyderman; Jessica A Lavery; Peter B Bach; Diane G Li; Annie Yang; Vivian E Strong; Ashley Russo; Katherine S Panageas Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Khic-Houy Prang; Rachel Canaway; Marie Bismark; David Dunt; Julie A Miller; Margaret Kelaher Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Ryan J Ellis; Tarik K Yuce; Daniel B Hewitt; Ryan P Merkow; Christine V Kinnier; Julie K Johnson; Karl Y Bilimoria Journal: Med Care Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.178