The relationship between integrated care and cancer patient experience: A scoping review of the evidence

Foglino, Silvia; Bravi, Francesca; Carretta, Elisa; Fantini, Maria Pia; Dobrow, Mark; Brown, Adalsteinn D.

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.12.004

Cited by 35 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To our knowledge, this is the first study with a specific focus on patients’ overall experience with pre‐diagnosis cancer care according to whether or not they were urgently referred to a CPP by their GP. Our main finding that CPP referred patients reported more positive experiences with pre‐diagnosis cancer care corresponds to earlier findings that integrated care (Foglino et al, ) and shorter delay (Mendonca et al, ) is associated with better patient experiences.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Cancer patients’ experiences with urgent referrals to cancer patient pathways

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective We aimed to explore whether cancer patients urgently referred to a cancer patient pathway (CPP) (CPP referred) by a general practitioner report experiences of pre‐diagnosis cancer care differently than patients not referred to a CPP (non‐CPP referred). Methods Data were collected from cross‐sectional questionnaire surveys among cancer patients and their GPs and linked to National registries. Poisson regression was used to generate adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) to compare reported experiences. Results The study included 2,256 individuals. CPP referred patients reported more positive overall experiences of the pre‐diagnosis phase (p < 0.001). Overall, CPP referred patients were 21% more likely than non‐CPP referred patients to report a positive experience after adjustment for case‐mix, comorbidity, disposable household income and educational level (PR = 1.21 [95% CI: 1.11–1.30]). The difference decreased to 14% when adjusted for Quality Deviations (PR = 1.14 [95% CI: 1.06–1.23]) and to 11% when adjusted for diagnostic interval (PR = 1.11 [95% CI: 1.02–1.20]). Conclusion Our findings suggest that CPP referred cancer patients have better experiences of pre‐diagnosis cancer care compared to non‐CPP referred patients. A substantial part of the difference could be attributed to shorter diagnostic intervals and/or the absence of quality deviations among CPP patients, which reveals the potential for generally improving cancer patients’ experiences by seamless and optimised diagnostic pathways.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Cancer patients’ experiences with urgent referrals to cancer patient pathways

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, all studies measuring the impact of clinical pharmacist services on patient satisfaction reported significant results. Patient satisfaction survey can serve as an indicator of service quality as well as a predictor of health‐related behaviour, as it reflects not only the pharmacist's degree of involvement during the care process, but also the needs and expectations of patients …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All studies assessing the quality of life showed that the pharma- can serve as an indicator of service quality as well as a predictor of health-related behaviour, as it reflects not only the pharmacist's degree of involvement during the care process, but also the needs and expectations of patients. 31,32 Another important finding of this review was that only one study assessed the economic impact of pharmacist interventions in patients with cancer. Iihara et al (2012) 12 showed that the inclusion of a pharmacist in oncology teams led to a better distribution of work among health professionals, allowing more patients to be assisted and generating a higher annual hospital revenue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of pharmacist interventions on adult outpatients with cancer: A systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWhat is known and objectives: Most antineoplastic drugs are highly toxic and have low therapeutic indexes, which can result in drug-related problems. In this context, pharmacist interventions may play an important role in the success of the treatment.The objective of this study was to examine the effects of pharmacist interventions on adult outpatients with cancer using antineoplastic drugs. Methods:A literature search was performed using PubMed, ISI Web of Science and LILACS databases from January 1990 to April 2016, using MeSH terms or text words related to pharmacist interventions, cancer and outpatient care. Studies published in English, Portuguese or Spanish on the effects of pharmacist interventions in outcome measures in adult outpatients with cancer were included. Two independent authors performed study selection and data extraction with a consensus process. The articles were analysed according to previously established criteria, such as country, study design, setting, population, type of cancer, description of the intervention and control groups, outcomes, main conclusions and study limitations. Results and discussion:A total of 874 records were identified, of which 11 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The studies were conducted mainly in the United States and included patients aged >50 years. Most studies had a before-after design. Pharmacist interventions primarily included educating and counselling patients on the management of adverse events. Rates of nausea and vomiting control, medication adherence and patient satisfaction were the most common outcome measures; a significant benefit in these parameters as a result of pharmacist interventions was noted in most studies. What is new and conclusion:The findings from this systematic review indicate that pharmacist interventions can improve outcome measures in outpatients with cancer.However, the collective quality of the studies was poor and gaps identified indicate that further research is needed to provide more robust results. K E Y W O R D Scancer, pharmaceutical care, pharmacists, systematic review

show abstract

“…The patient experience is accepted as an important measure of performance for cancer care and is included in a large number of cancer care evaluations and report cards. When it has been assessed, the patient experience of integrated care appears to be related to important dimensions of performance, including patient satisfaction, quality of life, psychological and physical outcomes, empowerment, and continuity of care [12]. Nevertheless, to ensure that patients receive high-quality continuous care and a positive experience overall, it is therefore vital that processes for administration, communication, and coordination between services are understood and optimised [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient and Health Care Professional Perspectives: A Case Study of the Lung Cancer Integrated Care Pathway

Bravi¹,

Ruscio²,

Frassoldati³

et al. 2018

International Journal of Integrated Care

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the perception of the quality of care, considering both patient experience and health care professionals’ perceptions as well as patient outcome measures of an integrated lung cancer pathway.Methods:A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2016 at Ferrara University Hospital, Italy. OPportunity for Treatment In ONcology (OPTION) questionnaires were administered to 77 patients, and the Care Process Self-Evaluation Tool (CPSET) questionnaires were given to 38 health care professionals. The effectiveness of the pathway was evaluated by analysing the tool’s positive impact on lung cancer surgery volume and 30-day mortality.Results:Seventy-seven patients were enrolled, and 38 health care professionals assessed the CPSET questionnaire. The highest scores were related to “respect” (100%), “satisfaction” (98.7%), and “trust” (97.4%) on the OPTION and to “patient-focused vision” (97.2%) and “patient engagement” (94.4%) on the CPSET. The lowest scores were related to “information” (26%) and “cooperation with general practitioner” (17.6%) on the OPTION and “cooperation between the hospital and primary care” (23.5%) for the CPSET. The outcomes analysis shows an increase in the volume of activity and a decrease in 30-day mortality after pathway implementation.Discussion:The lung cancer pathway is a patient-centred intervention that enables care to be shaped for patient needs in order to improve the quality and efficiency of service and clinical outcome.

show abstract

The relationship between integrated care and cancer patient experience: A scoping review of the evidence

Cited by 35 publications

References 45 publications

Cancer patients’ experiences with urgent referrals to cancer patient pathways

Cancer patients’ experiences with urgent referrals to cancer patient pathways

The effects of pharmacist interventions on adult outpatients with cancer: A systematic review

Patient and Health Care Professional Perspectives: A Case Study of the Lung Cancer Integrated Care Pathway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About