Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Cancer services patient experience in England

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Cancer services patient experience in England: quantitative and qualitative analyses of the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

E-pub ahead of print

Standard

Cancer services patient experience in England : quantitative and qualitative analyses of the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. / Brookes, Gavin; Baker, Paul.

In: BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care, 29.06.2022.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Brookes G, Baker P. Cancer services patient experience in England: quantitative and qualitative analyses of the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care. 2022 Jun 29. Epub 2022 Jun 29. doi: 10.1136/spcare-2022-003543

Author

Bibtex

@article{aa2f8cbf730a4eff9960d553a3015125,
title = "Cancer services patient experience in England: quantitative and qualitative analyses of the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey",
abstract = "Objectives: To examine patients{\textquoteright} responses to the English National Cancer Patient Experience Survey to understand what proportions of patients give positive and negative feedback, and to identify themes in responses which drive evaluations. Methods: Data comprise 214 340 survey responses (quantitative ratings and free-text comments) dated 2015–2018. The proportions of patients giving each quantitative rating (0–10) are compared and free-text comments are analysed using computer-assisted linguistic methods in order to ascertain frequent thematic drivers of positive and negative feedback. Results: Patients were most likely to give a most positive score of 10 (38.25%), while the overwhelming majority (87.12%) gave a score between 8 and 10. Analysis of 1000 positive comments found that most respondents (54%) praised staff{\textquoteright}s interpersonal skills. Other frequent themes of positive feedback included treatment standards, staff{\textquoteright}s communication skills, speed of diagnosis and treatment, and staff members{\textquoteright} technical competence. The most prominent themes in the negative comments were communication skills, treatment standards and waiting times for appointments and test/scan results, and delays and cancellations to appointments and operations. Conclusion: Standards of treatment and staff{\textquoteright}s communication skills are prominent themes of positive and negative feedback. Staff{\textquoteright}s interpersonal skills are more likely to be praised than criticised, while negative feedback is more likely to focus on issues around time (ie, delays and long waits). Clarity and honesty in communication about the lengths and causes of waits and delays are likely to increase patient satisfaction.",
keywords = "Original research, 1506, Cancer, Hospital care, Service evaluation, Communication",
author = "Gavin Brookes and Paul Baker",
year = "2022",
month = jun,
day = "29",
doi = "10.1136/spcare-2022-003543",
language = "English",
journal = "BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care",
issn = "2045-435X",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group Ltd",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cancer services patient experience in England

T2 - quantitative and qualitative analyses of the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey

AU - Brookes, Gavin

AU - Baker, Paul

PY - 2022/6/29

Y1 - 2022/6/29

N2 - Objectives: To examine patients’ responses to the English National Cancer Patient Experience Survey to understand what proportions of patients give positive and negative feedback, and to identify themes in responses which drive evaluations. Methods: Data comprise 214 340 survey responses (quantitative ratings and free-text comments) dated 2015–2018. The proportions of patients giving each quantitative rating (0–10) are compared and free-text comments are analysed using computer-assisted linguistic methods in order to ascertain frequent thematic drivers of positive and negative feedback. Results: Patients were most likely to give a most positive score of 10 (38.25%), while the overwhelming majority (87.12%) gave a score between 8 and 10. Analysis of 1000 positive comments found that most respondents (54%) praised staff’s interpersonal skills. Other frequent themes of positive feedback included treatment standards, staff’s communication skills, speed of diagnosis and treatment, and staff members’ technical competence. The most prominent themes in the negative comments were communication skills, treatment standards and waiting times for appointments and test/scan results, and delays and cancellations to appointments and operations. Conclusion: Standards of treatment and staff’s communication skills are prominent themes of positive and negative feedback. Staff’s interpersonal skills are more likely to be praised than criticised, while negative feedback is more likely to focus on issues around time (ie, delays and long waits). Clarity and honesty in communication about the lengths and causes of waits and delays are likely to increase patient satisfaction.

AB - Objectives: To examine patients’ responses to the English National Cancer Patient Experience Survey to understand what proportions of patients give positive and negative feedback, and to identify themes in responses which drive evaluations. Methods: Data comprise 214 340 survey responses (quantitative ratings and free-text comments) dated 2015–2018. The proportions of patients giving each quantitative rating (0–10) are compared and free-text comments are analysed using computer-assisted linguistic methods in order to ascertain frequent thematic drivers of positive and negative feedback. Results: Patients were most likely to give a most positive score of 10 (38.25%), while the overwhelming majority (87.12%) gave a score between 8 and 10. Analysis of 1000 positive comments found that most respondents (54%) praised staff’s interpersonal skills. Other frequent themes of positive feedback included treatment standards, staff’s communication skills, speed of diagnosis and treatment, and staff members’ technical competence. The most prominent themes in the negative comments were communication skills, treatment standards and waiting times for appointments and test/scan results, and delays and cancellations to appointments and operations. Conclusion: Standards of treatment and staff’s communication skills are prominent themes of positive and negative feedback. Staff’s interpersonal skills are more likely to be praised than criticised, while negative feedback is more likely to focus on issues around time (ie, delays and long waits). Clarity and honesty in communication about the lengths and causes of waits and delays are likely to increase patient satisfaction.

KW - Original research

KW - 1506

KW - Cancer

KW - Hospital care

KW - Service evaluation

KW - Communication

U2 - 10.1136/spcare-2022-003543

DO - 10.1136/spcare-2022-003543

M3 - Journal article

JO - BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care

JF - BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care

SN - 2045-435X

ER -