PurposeThe Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified patient-centeredness as crucial to quality health care. The IOM endorsed six patient-centeredness dimensions that stipulated that care must be: respectful to patients’ values, preferences, and expressed needs; coordinated and integrated; provide information, communication, and education; ensure physical comfort; provide emotional support; and involve family and friends. Patient-reported measures examine the patient’s perspective and are essential to the accurate assessment of patient-centered care. This article’s objectives are to: 1) use the six IOM-endorsed patient-centeredness dimensions as a framework to outline why patient-reported measures are crucial to the reliable measurement of patient-centered care; and 2) to identify existing patient-reported measures that assess each patient-centered care dimension.MethodsFor each IOM-endorsed patient-centeredness dimension, the published literature was searched to highlight the essential role of patients in assessing patient-centered care and informing quality improvement efforts. Existing literature was also searched to identify examples of patient-reported measures that assess each patient-centeredness dimension.ConclusionPatient-reported measures are arguably the best way to measure patient-centeredness. For instance, patients are best positioned to determine whether care aligns with patient values, preferences, and needs and the Measure of Patient Preferences is an example of a patient-reported measure that does so. Furthermore, only the patient knows whether they received the level of information desired, and if information was understood and can be recalled. Patient-reported measures that examine information provision include the Lung Information Needs Questionnaire and the EORTC QLQ-INFO25. In relation to physical comfort, only patients can report the severity of physical symptoms and whether medications provide adequate relief. Patient-reported measures that investigate physical comfort include the Pain Care Quality Survey and the Brief Pain Inventory. Using patient-reported measures to regularly measure patient-centered care is critical to identifying areas of health care where improvements are needed.

BackgroundTo ensure the provision of patient‐centred health care, it is essential that consumers are actively involved in the process of determining and implementing health‐care quality improvements. However, common strategies used to involve consumers in quality improvements, such as consumer membership on committees and collection of patient feedback via surveys, are ineffective and have a number of limitations, including: limited representativeness; tokenism; a lack of reliable and valid patient feedback data; infrequent assessment of patient feedback; delays in acquiring feedback; and how collected feedback is used to drive health‐care improvements.ObjectivesWe propose a new active model of consumer engagement that aims to overcome these limitations. This model involves the following: (i) the development of a new measure of consumer perceptions; (ii) low cost and frequent electronic data collection of patient views of quality improvements; (iii) efficient feedback to the health‐care decision makers; and (iv) active involvement of consumers that fosters power to influence health system changes.

Health utilization and need assessment data suggest there is considerable variation in access to outpatient specialist care. However, it is unclear if the types of barriers experienced are specific to chronic disease groups or experienced universally. This systematic review provides a detailed summary of common and unique barriers experienced by chronic disease groups when accessing and receiving care, and a synthesized list of possible health service initiatives to improve equitable delivery of optimal care in high-income countries. Quantitative articles describing barriers to specialist outpatient services were retrieved from CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PyscINFO. To be eligible for review, studies: were published from 2002 to May 2014; included samples with cancer, diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis, arthritis, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, asthma, chronic pulmonary disorder (COPD) or depression; and, were conducted in high-income countries. Using a previously validated model of access (Penchansky and Thomas’ model of fit), barriers were grouped according to five overarching domains and defined in more detail using 33 medical subject headings. Results from reviewed articles, including the scope and frequency of reported barriers, are conceptualized using thematic analysis and framed as possible health service initiatives. A total of 3181 unique records were screened for eligibility, of which 74 studies were included in final analysis. The largest proportion of studies reported acceptability barriers (75.7 %), of which demographic disparities (44.6 %) were reported across all diseases. Other frequently reported barriers included inadequate need assessment (25.7 %), information provision (32.4 %), or health communication (20 %). Unique barriers were identified for oncology, mental health, and COPD samples. Based on the scope, frequency and measurement of reported barriers, eight key themes with associated implications for health services are presented. Examples include: common accommodation and accessibility barriers caused on service organization or physical structure, such as parking and appointment scheduling; common barriers created by poor coordination of care within the healthcare team; and unique barriers resulting from inadequate need assessment and referral practices. Consideration of barriers, across and within chronic diseases, suggests a number of specific initiatives are likely to improve the delivery of patient-centered care and increase equity in access to high-quality health services.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12939-015-0179-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundWith increasing attention given to the quality of chronic disease care, a measurement approach that empowers consumers to participate in improving quality of care and enables health services to systematically introduce patient-centered initiatives is needed. A Web-based survey with complex adaptive questioning and interactive survey items would allow consumers to easily identify and prioritize detailed service initiatives.ObjectiveThe aim was to develop and test a Web-based survey capable of identifying and prioritizing patient-centered initiatives in chronic disease outpatient services. Testing included (1) test-retest reliability, (2) patient-perceived acceptability of the survey content and delivery mode, and (3) average completion time, completion rates, and Flesch-Kincaid reading score.MethodsIn Phase I, the Web-based Consumer Preferences Survey was developed based on a structured literature review and iterative feedback from expert groups of service providers and consumers. The touchscreen survey contained 23 general initiatives, 110 specific initiatives available through adaptive questioning, and a relative prioritization exercise. In Phase II, a pilot study was conducted within 4 outpatient clinics to evaluate the reliability properties, patient-perceived acceptability, and feasibility of the survey. Eligible participants were approached to complete the survey while waiting for an appointment or receiving intravenous therapy. The age and gender of nonconsenters was estimated to ascertain consent bias. Participants with a subsequent appointment within 14 days were asked to complete the survey for a second time.ResultsA total of 741 of 1042 individuals consented to participate (71.11% consent), 529 of 741 completed all survey content (78.9% completion), and 39 of 68 completed the test-retest component. Substantial or moderate reliability (Cohen’s kappa>0.4) was reported for 16 of 20 general initiatives with observed percentage agreement ranging from 82.1%-100.0%. The majority of participants indicated the Web-based survey was easy to complete (97.9%, 531/543) and comprehensive (93.1%, 505/543). Participants also reported the interactive relative prioritization exercise was easy to complete (97.0%, 189/195) and helped them to decide which initiatives were of most importance (84.6%, 165/195). Average completion time was 8.54 minutes (SD 3.91) and the Flesch-Kincaid reading level was 6.8. Overall, 84.6% (447/529) of participants indicated a willingness to complete a similar survey again.ConclusionsThe Web-based Consumer Preferences Survey is sufficiently reliable and highly acceptable to patients. Based on completion times and reading level, this tool could be integrated in routine clinical practice and allows consumers to easily participate in quality evaluation. Results provide a comprehensive list of patient-prioritized initiatives for patients with major chronic conditions and delivers practice-ready evidence to guide improvements in patient-centered care.

No abstract

(1) Background: This systematic review was conducted to identify cancer patient experiences, and the impact of out-of-pocket costs and financial burden in Australia. (2) Methods: A systematic review, following the Preferring Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, was conducted. Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature and PubMed were searched. The primary outcome was financial burden among cancer patients and their families in Australia. The secondary outcome was out-of-pocket costs associated with cancer care and treatment within the population sample, and the impact of financial burden. (3) Results: Nineteen studies were included, covering more than 70,000 Australians affected by cancer. Out-of-pocket costs varied by cancer type and ranged from an average of AUD 977 for breast cancer and lymphoedema patients to AUD 11,077 for prostate cancer patients. Younger aged patients (≤65 years), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people in rural and/or remote areas, households with low income, those who were unemployed and people with private health insurance were at increased risk of experiencing out-of-pocket costs, financial burden or a combination of both. (4) Conclusions: Australians diagnosed with cancer frequently experience financial burden, and the health and financial consequences are significant. Focusing efforts on the costs of care and options about where to have care within the context of informed decisions about cancer care is necessary.

Background: The International Psycho-Oncology Society (IPOS) recognizes psychosocial cancer care as a universal human right. IPOS emphasized that distress should be measured as the 6th Vital Sign alongside temperature, blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and pain. To date, >75 cancer care organizations and accreditation bodies have endorsed screening, monitoring, and treating the multifactorial symptoms of distress as an essential component to high-quality care. The degree to which this international commitment has translated into the integration of precision supportive care within clinical settings is unknown.Methods: Building upon a 2018 IPOS World Congress Symposium, this commentary provides 4 snapshots into the progress made toward integrating precision supportive care in India, Australia, Europe, and the United States. The commentary demonstrates the different approaches taken to develop screening practices or overcome barriers to comprehensive precision supportive care.Results: Although psychosocial cancer care is a universal right, service and patient barriers to implementation remain, such as: inadequate workforce distribution and service investment in psychosocial care; siloed teams and limited communication skills; and cultural challenges. Recurrent themes emerged which can be used to invigorate commitment to IPOS standards: ongoing capacity building of the international psycho-oncology community; supporting communication skills training and encouraging programmatic thinking within services; and advocating for ongoing investment in precision supportive care through evaluation and strong clinical leadership.Conclusions: In examining 4 unique settings, the commentary recognizes the geographic variation in health care resources and social contexts of cancer care alongside cultural perspectives on psychosocial distress, screening methods, and the value of precision supportive care.

BackgroundTranslational biomedical research relies on the availability of human tissue to explore disease aetiology and prognostic factors, with the objective of developing better targeted treatments. The establishment of biobanks poses ongoing ethical considerations in relation to donors. This is a quantitative study exploring medical oncology patients’ preferences for contributing to tissue biobanks.MethodsThe objectives of this study were to explore oncology patients’ preferences about tissue banking, including: 1) willingness to donate; 2) factors influencing donation decisions; 3) preferences about the use of donated tissue including permission systems, data linkage, and communication about research findings to donors. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in two tertiary oncology outpatient clinics. Eligible patients were approached by volunteers to complete a touchscreen survey in waiting rooms or while receiving intravenous therapy. Consenting participants completed demographic questions and received up to 12 previously validated items exploring preferences for donating tissue.Results224 oncology outpatients participated over a ten month period (69.1 % consent rate; 64.4 % completion rate). Most participants were female (54 %), were a mean age of 62 years, and diagnosed with breast (26 %) and bowel (20 %) cancer. Most participants indicated willingness to donate tissue (84 %) and for their sample to be stored for future use (96 %). Participants preferred a blanket consent approach (71 %), samples to be linked to medical records (62 %) and for general results of the research (79 %) to be provided to them. Factors influencing willingness to donate tissue included personal (85 %) or familial health benefits (88 %) and a sense of duty to future patients (82 %).ConclusionsThe overwhelming majority of oncology patients are willing to participate in a tissue bank, providing some support to explore ‘opt-out’ models of consent. To enhance patient acceptability, tissue banking programs should: (i) consider allowing blanket informed consent as well as opt-in models of consent; (ii) develop protocols allowing feedback of information about samples in line with patient preferences; (iii) provide clear information to potential donors about the benefits arising from donation.