Original Article

Incorporating Patient Satisfaction Metrics in Assessing Multidisciplinary Breast Cancer Care Quality

Authors: Jennifer L. Harper, MD, Anna-Maria A. De Costa, MD, PhD, Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, PhD, Katherine R. Sterba, PhD

Abstract

Objectives: The Medical University of South Carolina implemented a patient-centered multidisciplinary breast clinic program (MDBC) in August 2012. In this study, patient satisfaction with the MDBC care delivery model and communication with healthcare providers was examined to inform the refinement of the MDBC program.

Methods: During the first 10 months of the MDBC, patients were asked to complete a 14-question postconsultation telephone survey. A statistical analysis was performed to explore potential associations between age, race, and stage with overall patient satisfaction scores.

Results: Overall, patients (N = 52, 56% white, 42% African American, 2% Hispanic; mean age 61 years) rated the quality of care highly (mean 4.7, range [1 = poor to 5 = excellent]) and felt comfortable with their plan of care (mean 1.63, range [1 = extremely comfortable to 5 = not at all comfortable]). No statistically significant differences in overall satisfaction were found by age, race, or stage; however, patient responses were commonly not optimal (ie, either “no” or “yes, but not as much as I would like”) when asked if the care team addressed the impact of their diagnosis on personal relationships (40.4%) or emotional health (28.9%).

Conclusions: Patients were highly satisfied with the care they received in the MDBC program. Findings suggest that this model is well suited to a diverse patient population and have highlighted quality improvement targets such as increased emphasis on providers’ communication about psychosocial issues.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013.
 
2. Fennell ML, Das IP, Clauser S, et al. The organization of multidisciplinary care teams: modeling internal and external influences on cancer care quality. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010;2010:72-80.
 
3. National Cancer Institute. Follow-up Care Use Among Survivors (FOCUS) survey. http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/ocs/resources/focus.html. Accessed May 13, 2015.
 
4. Arora NK. Interacting with cancer patients: the significance of physicians’ communication behavior. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:791-806.
 
5. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform2009;42:377-381.
 
6. Holland JC, Bultz BD; National comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). The NCCN guideline for distress management: a case for making distress the sixth vital sign. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2007;5:3-7.
 
7. Mitchell AJ. Pooled results from 38 analyses of the accuracy of distress thermometer and other ultra-short methods of detecting cancer-related mood disorders. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:4670-4681.