Universal truths: Learning from the experience of cancer patients in Australia and England.

Abstract

255 Background: Self-reported patient experience data is vital to the design of responsive and relevant health services. Annual Cancer Patient Experience Surveys in England (NHS-CPES) have been used to effectively guide and monitor improvements in patient experience. This study measured baseline cancer patient experience in member hospitals of the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Australia, and benchmarked this with cancer patients in England. Methods: The NHS-CPES instrument and methodology was used. A paper-based questionnaire was mailed to 5,722 admitted patients aged >18 years with an eligible ICD-10 code. Australian results were compared to 71,793 patients in England from the 2011/12 NHS-CPES. Results: 37% (2,101) patients responded. Most patients rated their overall care as very good or excellent (91% Australia, 88% England). Having a named nurse specialist was a key predictor of experience. Patients with a specialist nurse were significantly more positive in 50 questions in Australia (77%) and 64 questions in England (98%) compared to patients without one. In both countries, patients with rarer cancers tended to be less positive than those with other cancer types. Australian patients with brain/central nervous system cancers and sarcomas gave the lowest score in 46 questions (71%). Patients with a disability or a long-term condition, and those from minority ethnic groups were also less positive. Relevant patient information was lacking; only 65% of patients in Australia and 77% in England were given understandable written information specific to their care, and a little over half received information about financial entitlements (58% Australia, 52% England). Conclusions: Cancer patient experience using the NHS-CPES has been successfully measured and compared across two different health systems. Findings in Australia are similar to those in England suggesting the same key issues affect all cancer patients. Important areas for quality improvement include the provision of tailored written patient information and the provision of named nurse specialists as part of the model of care. Acknowledgement: The authors thank Quality Health Limited for data analysis and the NHS for permitting use of the NHS-CPES.