A Delphi study to develop indicators of cancer patient experience for quality improvement
- 492 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to develop prioritised indicators to measure cancer patient experience and thus guide quality improvement in the delivery of patient care.
A Delphi study, consisting of two surveys and three workshops, was employed to gather expert opinions on the most important indicators to measure. Survey participants were 149 health professionals, academics/technical experts and consumers. The first survey was based on a literature review which identified 105 elements of care within 14 domains of patient experience. These were rated on a 7-point Likert scale, with ‘1’ representing high importance. Elements with mean ratings between 1.0 and 2.0 were retained for the second survey. The 43 least-important elements were omitted, four elements were revised and nine new elements added. Consensus was defined as at least 70% of participants rating an element ‘1’ or ‘2’. Multivariate and cluster analyses were used to develop 20 draft indicators, which were presented to 51 experts to refine and prioritise at the three workshops.
All elements in the second survey were rated ‘1’ or ‘2’ by 81% of participants. Workshop participants agreed strongly on the four most important indicators: coordinated care, access to care, timeliness of the first treatment, and communication. Other indicators considered highly important were follow-up care for survivors; timeliness of diagnosis; information relating to side effects, pain and medication; comprehensibility of information provided to patients; and needs assessment.
Experts identified priorities with a high level of consensus, providing a rigorous foundation for developing prioritised indicators of quality in cancer patient experience.
KeywordsPatient experience Quality indicators Quality improvement Delphi Cancer
Funding for the current research was provided by the Cancer Institute of New South Wales. The authors wish to thank Nicole Cook and Margaret Barbouttis of the Cancer Institute NSW and the many experts who contributed their time to this study
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Daly L (2012) Developing a quality cancer system—the role of patient experience. Aust J Cancer Nurs 13(2):4–8Google Scholar
- 2.Sizmur S, Redding D (2009) Core domains for measuring inpatients’ experience of care. Picker Institute Europe, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 3.Gerteis M, Edgman-Levitan S, Daley J, Delbanco TL (1993) Through the patients eyes. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- 6.Saunders C, Carter DJ, Bichel-Findlay J, Jordan A (2015) Cancer patient experience indicators—a review for the Cancer Institute NSW through the Sax Institute. Centre for Health Services Management. University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Faculty of HealthGoogle Scholar
- 8.NHS England (2015) CCG outcomes indicator set 2015/16: at-a-glance guide. Commissioning Strategy Directorate, NHS EnglandGoogle Scholar
- 9.Lacey K, Schofield PE, Krishnasamy M, Lethborg C, Cashill E, Thompson E, Butty J, Mollo A, Morrone A, Byrne J, Bishop JF (2014) Self-reported cancer patient experience in Australia and England. Asia-Pac J Clin Oncol 10:233Google Scholar
- 10.Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (2014) The 2014 cancer system performance report. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, OntarioGoogle Scholar
- 13.Chung KP, Lai MS, Cheng SH, Tang ST, Huang CC, Cheng AL, Hsieh PC (2008) Organization-based performance measures of cancer care quality: core measure development for breast cancer in Taiwan. Eur J Cancer Care 17(1):5–18Google Scholar
- 19.White V, Johnson K (2011) Victorian patient experience survey development project: review of literature relating to survey tools used to assess cancer patients’ experiences of care. Prepared for the cancer strategy and development section. Department of Health, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
- 21.Aldenderfer MS, Blashfield RK (1984) Cluster analysis. Sage University paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences 07-044. Newbury Park, California, Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
- 22.Scottish Cancer Taskforce National Cancer Quality Steering Group (2013) Cancer patient experience quality performance indicators. NHS Scotland, Healthcare Improvement ScotlandGoogle Scholar
- 25.Hsu CC, Sandford BA (2007) The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval 12(10):1–8Google Scholar
- 26.Delnoij DM, Rademakers JJ, Groenewegen PP (201) The Dutch consumer quality index: an example of stakeholder involvement in indicator development. BMC Health Serv Res 10:88Google Scholar
- 28.Sansoni J, Williams K, Morris D, Thompson C (2016) Development of prioritised patient experience indicators for the patient centred quality cancer system program: technical report. Centre for Health Service Development. University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australian Health Services Research InstituteGoogle Scholar