Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 21, Issue 11, pp 2983–2990 | Cite as

Patients’ and professionals’ evaluations of quality of care in oncology outpatient clinics

  • Danièle RobergeEmail author
  • Dominique Tremblay
  • Marie-Ève Turgeon
  • Djamal Berbiche
Original Article



The purpose of this study is to compare patients' and professionals' evaluations of the quality of care in oncology outpatient clinics.


The data were drawn from a 2011 survey of 1,379 patients and 155 professionals conducted in 15 % of oncology outpatient clinics in Quebec, Canada. Respondents completed self-administered questionnaires that addressed the aspects of timeliness (TIM), patient-centred care (PCC), communication (COM), quality of the physical environment (QPE), and continuity (CONT). Patients’ and professionals’ mean scores (maximum = 4) for each aspect were compared using mixed model analysis.


Patients’ and professionals’ perceptions of quality of care were largely positive, with mean scores for all items of 3.66 and 3.37, respectively. However, for the majority of aspects of quality, the professionals' scores were lower than those of patients. The aspects rated most positively by both groups were PCC, COM and CONT. Timeliness was the least positively evaluated, with mean scores of 3.34 for patients and 3.16 for professionals.


In many respects, cancer patients and professionals share relatively common views about the most and least positive aspects of the quality of care, although professionals tend to be more critical. Aspects evaluated less favourably by both groups and those on which opinions differ are good candidates for improvements. Some ideas for solutions are proposed. Positive patient feedback is especially important in cancer care, where attraction and retention of professionals is a key concern.


Quality cancer care Patients' evaluations Professionals' evaluations Oncology outpatient clinics 



This study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (Grant # 020072) and the Ministry of Health and Social Services of Quebec.

Ethical standards

Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Research Ethics Committee of Charles-LeMoyne Hospital.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no relationship with the organization that sponsored the research. The authors have full control of all primary data.


  1. 1.
    Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (2012) Sustaining action toward a shared vision. Accessed 13 December 2012
  2. 2.
    Clinical Oncological Society of Australia, Cancer Council Australia, National Cancer Control Initiative (2003) Optimising cancer care in Australia: a consultative report prepared by the Clinical Oncological Society of Australia, The Cancer Council Australia and the National Cancer Control Initiative. Accessed 13 December 2012
  3. 3.
    Oncosuisse (2011) Programme national contre le cancer pour la Suisse 2011–2015. Accessed 13 December 2012
  4. 4.
    Ministere des Affaires sociales et de la Santé (2009) Plan cancer 2009–2013. Accessed 13 December 2012
  5. 5.
    Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec (2007) Orientations prioritaires 2007–2012 du Programme québécois de lutte contre le cancer. Accessed 13 December 2012
  6. 6.
    Department of Health (2011) Improving outcomes: a strategy for cancer. Accessed 13 December 2012
  7. 7.
    Durieux P, Bissery A, Dubois S, Gasquet I, Coste J (2004) Comparison of health care professionals' self-assessments of standards of care and patients' opinions on the care they received in hospital: observational study. Qual Saf Health Care 13:198–202. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2003.007336 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jung HP, Wensing M, Olesen F, Grol R (2002) Comparison of patients' and general practitioners' evaluations of general practice care. Qual Saf Health Care 11:315–319. doi: 10.1136/qhc.11.4.315 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zandbelt LC, Smets EMA, Oort FJ, Godfried MH, de Haes HCJM (2004) Satisfaction with the outpatient encounter: a comparison of patients' and physicians' views. J Gen Intern Med 19:1088–1095PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Palmer RH (1991) Considerations in defining quality of health care. In: Palmer RH, Donabedian A, Povar GJ (eds) Striving for quality in health care: an inquiry into policy and practice. Health Administration Press, Ann Arbor, pp 1–58Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pilligrimiene Z, Buciuniene I (2008) Different perspectives on health care quality: is the consensus possible? Eng Econ 56:104–110Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cvengros JA, Christensen AJ, Hillis SL, Rosenthal GE (2007) Patient and physician attitudes in the health care context: attitudinal symmetry predicts patient satisfaction and adherence. Ann Behav Med 33:262–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fagerberg CR, Kragstrup J, Stovring H, Rasmussen NK (1999) How well do patient and general practitioner agree about the content of consultations. Scand J Prim Health Care 17:149–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krupat E, Rosenkranz SL, Yeager CM, Barnard K, Putnam SM, Inui TS (2000) The practice orientations of physicians and patients: the effect of doctor-patient congruence on satisfaction. Patient Educ Couns 39:49–59. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(99)00090-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sewitch MJ, Abrahamowicz M, Dobkin PL, Tamblyn R (2003) Measuring differences between patients' and physicians' health perceptions: the Patient–Physician Discordance Scale. J Behav Med 26:245–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coulter A, Fitzpatrick R, Cornwell J (2009) The point of care measures of patients' experience in hospital: purpose, methods and uses. Accessed 13 December 2012
  17. 17.
    Lauer P, Murphy SP, Powers MJ (1982) Learning needs of cancer patients: a comparison of nurse and patient perceptions. Nurs Res 31:11–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldberg R, Guadagnoli E, Silliman RA, Glicksman A (1990) Cancer patients' concerns: congruence between patients and primary care physicians. J Cancer Educ 5:193–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Campbell C, Lockyer J, Laidlaw T, Macleod H (2007) Assessment of a matched-pair instrument to examine doctor-patient communication skills in practising doctors. Med Educ 41:123–129. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02657.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cegala DJ, McNeilis KS, McGee DS (1995) A study of doctors' and patients' perceptions of information processing and communication competence during the medical interview. Health Commun 7(3):179–203. doi: 10.1207/s15327027hc0703_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kenny DA, Veldhuijzen W, Weijden T, LeBlanc A, Lockyer J, Légaré F, Campbell C (2010) Interpersonal perception in the context of doctor-patient relationships: a dyadic analysis of doctor-patient communication. Soc Sci Med 70:763–768. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.065 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rashid A, Forman W, Jagger C, Mann R (1989) Consultations in general practice: a comparison of patients' and doctors' satisfaction. BMJ 299:1015–1016PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haddad S, Roberge D, Pineault R (1997) Comprendre la qualité: en reconnaître la complexité. Ruptures, revue transdisciplinaire en santé 4(1):59–78Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Valentine N, Darby C, Bonsel GJ (2008) Which aspects of non-clinical quality of care are most important? Results from WHO's general population surveys of "health systems responsiveness" in 41 countries. Soc Sci Med 66:1939–1950PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux (1997) Programme québécois de lutte contre le cancer: Pour lutter efficacement contre le cancer, formons équipe. Accessed 13 December 2012
  26. 26.
    Gouvernement du Québec (2012) Orientations prioritaires 2007–2012 du Programme québécois de lutte contre le cancer: Bilan des réalisations. Accessed 13 December 2012
  27. 27.
    Valentine NB, Lavallée R, Bao L, Bonsel GJ, Murray CJL (2003) Classical psychometric assessment of the responsiveness instrument in the WHO multi-country survey study on health and responsiveness 2000–2001. In: Murray CJL, Evans DB (eds) Health systems performance assessment: debates, methods and empiricism. World Health Organization, Geneva, pp 597–630Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tremblay D (2008) La traduction d'une innovation organisationnelle dans les pratiques professionnelles de réseau: l'infirmière pivot en oncologie. Dissertation, Université de Montréal, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Haggerty JL, Roberge D, Freeman GK, Beaulieu C, Breton M (2012) When patients encounter several providers: validation of a geriatric measure of continuity of care. Ann Fam Med. doi: 10.1370/afm.1378 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1997) Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. BMJ 314(7080):572. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2009) Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ahlen G, Mattsson B, Gunnarsson R (2007) Physician-patient questionnaire to assess physician-patient agreement at the consultation. Fam Pract 24:498–503. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmm043 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gesell SB, Gregory N (2004) Identifying priority actions for improving patient satisfaction with outpatient cancer care. J Nurs Care Qual 19(3):226–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kallen MA, Terrell JA, Lewis-Patterson P, Hwang JP (2012) Improving wait time for chemotherapy in an outpatient clinic at a Comprehensive Cancer Center. J Oncol Pract 8:e1–e7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baker G, Schwartz F (2005) Innovation and access to cancer care services in Ontario. Healthcare Quarterly 8(Suppl 2):2–12. Accessed 13 December 2012Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2004) Improving supportive and palliative care for adults with cancer. Accessed 13 December 2012
  37. 37.
    Høybye MT (2013) Healing environments in cancer treatment and care. Relations of space and practice in hematological cancer treatment. Acta Oncol 52(2):440–446. doi: 10.3109/0284186x.2012.741323 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Geimer-Flanders J (2009) Creating a healing environment: rationale and research overview. Clev Clin J Med 76(Suppl 2):S66–69. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.76.s2.13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lis CG, Rodeghier M, Grutsch JF, Gupta D (2009) Distribution and determinants of patient satisfaction in oncology with a focus on health related quality of life. BMC Health Serv Res 9:190–200. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-190 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rahmqvist M, Bara AC (2010) Patient characteristics and quality dimensions related to patient satisfaction. Int J Qual Health Care 22(2):86–92. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzq009 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Travaglia JF, Nugus PI, Greenfield D, Westbrook JI, Braithwait J (2012) Visualising differences in professionals' perspectives on quality and safety. BMJ Qual Saf 21(9):778–783. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs.2011.051755 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Frampton S, Guastello S, Brady C, Hale M, Horowitz S, Smith SB, Stone S (2008) Patient-centred care improvement guide. Accessed 13 December 2012
  43. 43.
    Godlee F (2009) Through the patient's eye. BMJ. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b588 Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Papastavrou E, Efstathiou G, Charalambous A (2011) Nurses' and patients' perceptions of caring behaviours: quantitative systematic review of comparative studies. J Adv Nurs 67:1191–1205. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05580.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mezzich JE, Snaedal J, van Weel C, Botbol M, Salloum I (2010) Introduction to person-centered medicine: from concepts to practice. J Eval Clin Pract 17(2):330–332. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01606.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danièle Roberge
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Dominique Tremblay
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marie-Ève Turgeon
    • 2
  • Djamal Berbiche
    • 2
  1. 1.Community Health Sciences Department, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesUniversité de SherbrookeLongueuilCanada
  2. 2.Charles-LeMoyne Hospital Research CentreGreenfield ParkCanada
  3. 3.Nursing School, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesUniversité de SherbrookeLongueuilCanada

Personalised recommendations