Patient Experience Performance at a Primary Cancer Center vs. Satellite Facilities

Abstract

<h3>Purpose/Objective(s)</h3> Patient experience tools are used throughout healthcare as a means of evaluating the performance of providers and the department. In radiation medicine, these tools are important in evaluating patient-specific metrics through their care journey. This study assessed patient experience outcomes from a central tertiary cancer program and multiple community satellite clinics in a single academic healthcare network. <h3>Materials/Methods</h3> Radiation medicine patient experience survey data was collected from a central facility and 5 satellite locations from January 2017 through June 2021. Surveys were distributed to all patients after completion of their radiation treatment. The study cohort was divided by our central facility and satellite locations respectively. Questions were scored on the Likert scale (1-5) and were converted to a 0-100 scale. To compare the scores between central and satellites, 2-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests were completed on each question followed by an adjustment for multiple comparisons (Dunnett's test). <h3>Results</h3> Approximately 4,000 consecutively returned surveys were reviewed. During the study period, the central site conducted a total of 117,583 LINAC, 1,425 non-invasive stereotactic radiosurgery, 273 SRS, and 830 SBRT procedures. The combined satellites conducted a total of 76,788 LINAC, 131 non-invasive stereotactic radiosurgery, 95 SRS, and 355 SBRT procedures. Patient satisfaction scores were compared between central & satellites. The central facility fared better than the satellites on "Convenience of Parking" (95.9 vs 87.9, <i>p</i>=.0001), but worse across the board (Table 1). <h3>Conclusion</h3> All sites yielded exemplary patient experience rates with satellites scoring higher than the main campus. These results exemplifying enhanced patient experience at the satellite sites require a deeper analysis of factors influencing the central facility, as the survey did not account for varying patient volumes and disparities in complexity of care across sites. Further, these results are counter to the variety of clinical resources at the main campus such as full-time social workers, patient concierge, dieticians, psychiatrists, et cetera. Attributes related to the community clinics include a smaller setting where the practice layout is easier to navigate and where patients likely feel a more individualistic relationship with the staff. These results suggest that high volume, tertiary facilities will require unique program initiatives to improve the patient experience.