Abstract
Background
Outcomes for treatment for upper gastrointestinal cancer traditionally include procedure-related morbidity and mortality and long-term survival. Patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life (QOL) and satisfaction measures, add to standard end points, but associations between these factors are not fully understood. This study examined how patient satisfaction related to surgical morbidity, treatment type, and QOL outcomes after inpatient treatment for upper gastrointestinal cancer.
Methods
Consecutive patients who had completed treatment in one unit were invited to participate in this study and complete the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-PATSAT32 and QLQ-C30 questionnaires within 2 months of discharge. Regression analyses examined relationships between satisfaction and surgical morbidity (major complications and type of treatment) and between satisfaction and QOL variables, adjusting for age and sex.
Results
During the study, 181 patients were treated, 162 were eligible, and 139 returned both questionnaires (response rate, 86%). Of the study sample, the treatment outcome was potential cure in 105 (67 esophagectomy and 38 D2 gastrectomy), and 34 received palliative treatment. Thirty-seven patients (27%) had major complications. Patients who received palliative treatment reported satisfaction and QOL scores similar to those of patients who received curative treatment. However, patients who experienced major morbidity reported significantly worse QOL than those without morbidity (P < .01). Satisfaction scores were the same in patients with or without complications. There were no associations between satisfaction and QOL scores (r < .34).
Conclusions
Patient satisfaction with hospital care is independent of morbidity, treatment type, and QOL outcomes. It may be used to feed back information to providers of health care to improve patients’ experiences of treatment.
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference
The American Society of Clinical Oncology. Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:671–9
de Boer AGEM, van Lanschot JJB, van Sandick JW, et al. Quality of life after transhiatal compared with extended transthoracic resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:4202–8
Homs MY, Steyerberg EW, Eijkenboom WM, et al. Single-dose brachytherapy versus metal stent placement for the palliation of dysphagia from oesophageal cancer: multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2004;364:1497–504
Blazeby JM, Sanford E, Falk SJ, et al. Health-related quality of life during neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for localized esophageal carcinoma. Cancer 2005;103:1791–9
Zieren HU, Zippel K, Zieren J, et al. Quality of life after surgical treatment of gastric carcinoma. Eur J Surg 1998;164:119–25
Blazeby JM, Farndon JR, Donovan J, Alderson D. A prospective longitudinal study examining the quality of life of patients with esophageal carcinoma. Cancer 2000;88:1781–7
Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:1829–43
Bredart A, Bottomley A, Blazeby J, et al. An international prospective study of the EORTC cancer in-patient satisfaction with care measure (EORTC IN-PATSAT32). Eur J Cancer 2005;41:2120–31
Borras JM, Sanchez-Hernandez A, Navarro M, et al. Compliance, satisfaction, and quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer receiving home chemotherapy or outpatient treatment: a randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 2001;322:826–31
Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, et al. The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess 2002;6:1–244
Kavadas V, Barham CP, Finch-Jones MD, et al. Assessment of satisfaction with care after inpatient treatment for oesophageal and gastric cancer. Br J Surg 2004;91:719–23
Blazeby JM, Nicklin J, Brookes ST, Winstone K, Alderson D. The feasibility of quality of life assessment in patients with upper gastrointestinal tract cancer. Br J Cancer 2003;89:497–501
Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality of life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:365–76
Fayers P, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, et al. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. Brussels: Quality of Life Unit, EORTC Data Centre, 1995
Jackson JL, Chamberlin J, Kroenke K. Predictors of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med 2001;52:609–20
Kane RL, Maciejewski M, Finch M. The relationship of patient satisfaction with care and clinical outcomes. Med Care 1997;35:714–30
Walker MS, Ristvedt SL, Haughey BH. Patient care in multidisciplinary cancer clinics: does attention to psychosocial needs predict patient satisfaction? Psychooncology 2003;12:291–300
Blanchard CG, Labrecque MS, Ruckdeschel JC, Blanchard EB. Physician behaviors, patient perceptions, and patient characteristics as predictors of satisfaction of hospitalized adult cancer-patients. Cancer 1990;65:186–92
Bredart A, Razavi D, Robertson C, et al. Assessment of quality of care in an oncology institute using information on patients’ satisfaction. Oncology 2001;61:120–8
Bredart A, Bouleuc C, Dolbeault S. Doctor-patient communication and satisfaction with care in oncology. Curr Opin Oncol 2005;17:351–4
Hulscher JB, van Sandick JW, de Boer AG, et al. Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1662–9
Luketich JD, Alvelo-Rivera M, Buenaventura PO, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg 2003;238:486–95
Acknowledgments
J.M.B. is supported by an MRC Clinician Scientist Award. K.N.L.A. is supported by a project grant from Cancer Research UK.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Avery, K.N.L., Metcalfe, C., Nicklin, J. et al. Satisfaction With Care: An Independent Outcome Measure in Surgical Oncology. Ann Surg Oncol 13, 817–822 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2006.08.019
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2006.08.019