by Margaret I. Fitch, Alison McAndrew and Tamara Harth

Measuring trends in performance across time:
Providing information to cancer patients
by Margaret I. Fitch, Alison McAndrew and Tamara Harth
Abstract
Providing relevant, up-to-date information is identified as a quality
standard of cancer care. Cancer programs need to be able to evaluate whether they are meeting the standard and to monitor their performance on an ongoing basis. Routine collection of clearly defined
data, using reliable and valid measures, provides cancer program
leaders with dependable information upon which to make decisions
and monitor trends in performance over time.
This article describes one cancer centre’s experience in using standardized data collection regarding provision of patient information.
The Cancer Patient Information Importance-Satisfaction Scale has
been administered routinely in an outpatient setting over eight years.
The profile we create from the data assists us in making informed
decisions about patient education initiatives.
Introduction
The consequences of cancer and its treatment extend far beyond
a physical impact. There can also be emotional, psychosocial, spiritual, and practical consequences (Fitch, Page, & Porter, 2009).
Cancer patients have repeatedly described the importance of information, communication and support in dealing effectively with
these consequences (Fitch, Armstrong, & Tsang, 2008; Fitch, Gray,
Godel, & Labrecque, 2008; Fitch, Mings, & Lee, 2008; Fitch, Nicoll, &
Keller-Olaman, 2007; Steele, & Fitch, 2008; Vlossak & Fitch, 2008).
Providing relevant, up-to-date and understandable information
is identified as a standard of quality cancer care (Accreditation
Canada, 2010) and professional practice (CANO, 2010; CAPO, 2010).
In light of the expectation to provide quality care, cancer programs or agencies need to determine their capacity to meet standards and monitor their performance against the standards
(Weingart, Price, Duncombe, Connor, Sommer, Connelly, et al.,
2007). Routine collection of indicator data regarding quality of care,
using reliable and valid measures, provides cancer program leaders
with valuable information upon which to make decisions (Mainz,
Krog, Bjornshave, & Bartels, 2004). In particular, access to data
About the authors
Margaret I. Fitch, RN, PhD, Head, Oncology Nursing,
Co-director, Patient and Family Support Program,
Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences
Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON M4N 3N5
Phone: 416-480-5891; Fax: 416-480-7806; Email:
[email protected]
Alison McAndrew, BA, RAP, Research Co-ordinator,
Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences
Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5
Phone: 416-480-5000 ext 7717; Fax: 416-480-7806;
Email: [email protected]
Tamara Harth, BA (HON), MLIS, Manager, Patient
Education Program, Odette Cancer Centre,
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview
Avenue, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5
Phone: 416-480-5000 x 7739; Fax: 416-480-6002;
Email: [email protected]
doi:10.5737/1181912x234247253
about the cancer program’s performance in providing information
to patients offers the opportunity to determine if the patient education goals are being met or if adjustments are required. Having an
ongoing system of regular indicator data collection also offers an
excellent opportunity to observe how workplace changes may influence performance, or study the result of a new initiative.
When cancer programs decide to gather data for the purpose of
measuring quality performance they must select a relevant indicator to measure and have a reliable, valid tool to capture the indicator data (Miransky, 2003). Additionally, the data must be easy to
gather and analyze. The measurement device must be brief, easy to
administer, simple to score, and able to produ ce a time sensitive
report.
Several years ago, we developed the Cancer Patient Information
Importance-Satisfaction Scale to serve as an indicator measurement device. Following the initial psychometric evaluation (Fitch
& McAndrew, 2011), we began to use the scale on a regular basis to
gather indicator data about the provision of patient information in our
cancer centre. This article presents the trends or data profile over several years of using the tool and describes the lessons we have learned
working with indicator data about providing patient information.
Background
The expectation that cancer centres provide patient information
is based on the evidence that information has an important role in
helping cancer patients to cope with illness (Rutten, Arora, Bakos,
Aziz, & Rowland, 2005; Van der Molen, 2000) by reducing uncertainty and helping a person create a set of expectations about an
illness event (Brashers, Goldsmith, & Hsieh, 2002). Lack of information is related to high levels of anxiety, emotional distress, inability to problem-solve, decreased satisfaction with care, and reduced
capacity to plan for the future (Coulter & Ellins, 2007; Mills &
Davidson, 2002; Sutherland, Hoey, White, Jefford, & Hegarly, 2008).
A significant amount of literature regarding the perspectives of
patients is available to guide cancer organizations in the development, design, and delivery of patient information. The type of information patients want to receive has been described (Smith, Dickens,
& Edwards, 2005) and includes information about the disease, available treatments, prognosis, side effects, and how to cope with emotional changes and practical challenges.
However, all patients do not want the same information at the
same point in time (James, Daniels, Rahman, McConkey, Derry,
& Young, 2007; Leyton et al., 2000), nor do they want the same
amount of information in the same format (Skalla et al., 2004). This
implies the need for astute assessment of the patient’s readiness to
learn and tailoring the delivery of the information during clinical
encounters. For clinicians, it can be challenging within busy environments to determine who requires detailed versus general information, whether emotional distress is interfering with a person’s
capacity to comprehend new information at a specific point in time,
and how to provide complex disease and treatment information
in an understandable manner. Patients often report difficulties in
understanding all that a physician or nurse has told them during a
clinic appointment (Fitch & Green, 2005).
Patients expect the information they receive to be correct, current (up-to-date), understandable, and relevant to their situation
(Fitch, Nicoll, & Keller-Olaman, 2007). They also expect communication that is non-judgmental, focused on them, as a unique person,
and allows sufficient opportunity for questions and clarification
about their situation (Moody, 2003).
CONJ • RCSIO Fall/Automne 2013 247
Given that providing patient information is a complex process
and influenced by many factors, it is important to know if patients
are receiving the information they need. Cancer agencies ought
to know how well they are meeting quality standards related to
patient information. Agencies need to find ways to monitor their
performance in this important arena, as circumstances in the care
environment are in constant flux and can influence the capacity to
provide patient information effectively.
Measurement of performance
Performance measurement requires gathering data about how
well an organization is providing a standard of service or care
(Berwick, James, & Coye, 2003). Ideally, clearly defined data are
gathered on a routine basis using a reliable and valid measure and
are available for regular review, as the basis for decision-making by
clinicians and program leaders. Indicator data, collected in numerical form, facilitate presentation of results in graphic format, documentation over time, and comparison across time and jurisdictions.
Increases or decreases in the numerical results alert managers and
clinicians about potential problems or areas that may need improvement. Such an alert ought to stimulate deeper investigation in an
area to determine the root of the issue and understand what can be
done to correct the situation. A key step in achieving improvement
is regular review of the data by decision makers.
Indicator data should be relatively easy to gather on a routine
basis, score, and summarize for reporting purposes. Once the psychometric properties of a measurement tool have been established
with an appropriately large sample, data can be gathered from
smaller samples on a regular basis and allow trends to be monitored relatively easily. Access to trend data provides an excellent
opportunity to determine performance over time.
Cancer Patient Information
Importance-Satisfaction Scale
The Cancer Patient Information Importance-Satisfaction Scale
was developed as a brief, easily administered indicator tool (Fitch
& McAndrew, 2011). The initial psychometric properties were established with a sample of 540 cancer patients attending an ambulatory clinic. Cronbach’s alpha for the Importance Subscale was 0.89
and for the Satisfaction Subscale was 0.92.
The topics selected for the 12 items on the tool were drawn
from the literature and reflect those topic areas patients most frequently identified as important for them to know (Mills & Sullivan,
1999; Rutten, Arora, Bakos, Aziz, & Rowland, 2005; Skalla, Bakitas,
Furstenberg, Ahles, & Henderson, 2004). The tool is formatted on
one 11 inch by 8 1/2 inch page with printing on both sides (see
Figures 1 and 2). One side of the page has 12 topic items listed
and the patient is asked to rate the importance of each topic. The
other side of the page has the same 12 topic items, but the person is
asked to rate each item in terms of their satisfaction with the information they actually received. Each rating is completed on a 5-point
Likert scale. The anchor at one end of the response scales is “not”
(0) and at the other end is “very” (4). Additionally the tool captures
selected demographic information (i.e., age, gender, type of cancer,
time since diagnosis).
Purpose
The purpose of this article is to highlight the work we have
undertaken in performance measurement regarding patient information at our cancer centre. Following the design and testing of
an indicator measure, the Cancer Patient Information ImportanceSatisfaction Scale (Fitch & McAndrew, 2011), we began to gather data
using this tool and engage in review and dialogue about the results
and trends in the data. We believe it could be useful to health care
professionals in other cancer centres to learn about our experience.
248 CONJ • RCSIO Fall/Automne 2013
Methods
Design, accrual, and procedures
The Cancer Patient Information Importance-Satisfaction Scale is
administered once a year to a convenience cross-sectional sample of
patients attending the cancer centre.
Data are gathered from approximately 100 ambulatory cancer
patients in the waiting area of our outpatient clinic on each measurement occasion. Patients must be able to read English to participate.
Patients are approached, on a convenience basis, as they wait
for their clinic appointment by the project assistant. The project
assistant determines if the individual is the patient (rather than the
family member) and can understand and read English. For those
individuals, the assistant then explains what the project is about,
what they are being asked to do, and how we are handling confidentiality. If the patient agrees to participate, the individual completes the Cancer Information Importance-Satisfaction Scale while
they wait for their appointment. They are given a paper copy of the
tool on a hard clip board and a pencil. The tool takes between three
and six minutes to complete. The completion of the tool and returning it to the project assistant is deemed evidence of their consent
for participation. Neither the patient name nor hospital file number
is written on the tool. This approach was approved by the Research
Ethics Committee of the hospital.
Scoring of the tool and analysis
The Cancer Patient Information Importance-Satisfaction Scale (see
description above) was designed for use in two ways: as a checklist
(each item considered on its own) and as two subscale scores (information importance and information satisfaction). For use as a checklist, each item is scored separately on a scale of 0 to 4. The average
item scores for the sample are calculated by adding the individual
participant response numbers across the sample and calculating the
mean. Calculation of averages allows easier comparison over time
and between groups with subsequent administrations of the tool.
The two subscale scores (i.e., importance, satisfaction) are calculated by adding item response numbers across all 12 respective
items for each participant. The range of possible total response
scores for each subscale is 0 to 48. Subsequently, group mean
total subscale scores can be calculated. We calculate mean group
total subscale scores for the entire sample and for disease-specific
groups (gyne, breast, etc.).
In addition to the descriptive reporting of results (i.e., total scores
and mean scores), we also calculate correlations between the importance and satisfaction scores for each item. Ideally it would be desirable to observe high correlations between these two dimensions.
High correlations reflect the idea that patients are satisfied with the
information they received in the topic areas they rated as important.
Results
Results will be presented for seven years and will illustrate the
various ways this type of data can be analyzed and made available
for review and decision-making.
Demographic characteristics
Selected demographic characteristics of the samples are presented in Table 1. Given the nature of convenience samples, some
variation is expected from sample to sample. The average age in
samples ranges between 60 and 65 years, the proportion of females
ranges between 49 and 63, and the average time since diagnosis
ranges from 1.6 to 3.1 years.
Trends in total scale scores
The trends in the total subscale scores for importance and
satisfaction over the seven years are presented in graphic format in Figure 3. The data from the 2003 sample of 540 served
continued on page 250…
doi:10.5737/1181912x234247253
Figure 1 : New Information and Satisfaction Measurement Tool
Patient Information/Satisfaction Questionnaire
Here at the Odette Cancer Centre (OCC), we are interested in improving our patient education resources and understanding where
improvements could be made. This study is aimed at identifying the information that you have received at OCC, as well as your satisfaction with that information. This questionnaire is handed out to all willing individuals who are being cared for at OCC. All results will
be kept strictly confidential. Completing the survey and returning it gives us permission to use your data for the purposes stated above.
Age: ____________ Sex: ____________ Type of Cancer:______________________________________________________ Year of Diagnosis: ____________
Not important
Medical condition
0
1
2
3
Very Important
4
Possible side effects of cancer
0
1
2
3
4
Treatment choices available
0
1
2
3
4
Possible side effects of treatment
0
1
2
3
4
Possible emotional reactions
0
1
2
3
4
What to do to relieve physical discomfort
0
1
2
3
4
Diet and nutrition
0
1
2
3
4
Supplies and equipment you might need at home
0
1
2
3
4
Counselling services available
0
1
2
3
4
How to speak with another individual who has cancer
0
1
2
3
4
Alternative therapies for cancer
0
1
2
3
4
Self-help groups 0
1
2
3
4
Please turn over â
Figure 2 : New Information and Satisfaction Measurement Tool
HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU?
By circling one number for each line, please indicate how satisfied you are with the information you have received for each of the following topics:
Not Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Medical condition
0
1
2
3
4
Possible side effects of cancer
0
1
2
3
4
Treatment choices available
0
1
2
3
4
Possible side effects of treatment
0
1
2
3
4
Possible emotional reactions
0
1
2
3
4
What to do to relieve physical discomfort
0
1
2
3
4
Diet and nutrition
0
1
2
3
4
Supplies and equipment you might need at home
0
1
2
3
4
Counselling services available
0
1
2
3
4
How to speak with another individual who has cancer
0
1
2
3
4
Alternative therapies for cancer
0
1
2
3
4
Self-help groups
0
1
2
3
4
Anything else about information you would like to tell us about? ________________________________________________________________________________________________
If you have any questions or concerns about the questionnaire, please ask the research assistant who handed you this questionnaire.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.
Please return the completed questionnaire to the research assistant.
doi:10.5737/1181912x234247253
CONJ • RCSIO Fall/Automne 2013 249
…continued from page 248
as a benchmark. In subsequent years, mean scores fell within +/1 standard deviation of those original scores. Overall the mean
importance score in 2009 was 42.1 (+/- 6.9), the highest of all observations, while 2005 registered the highest satisfaction mean score
(35.7, +/- 8.4). In 2010, the means fell to 38.8(+/- 8.0) and 30.4 (+/11.4) respectively. The group means for the importance scores are
consistently higher than the satisfaction scores.
The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation coefficients for the
total scores at each time of measurement were rather varied over
the years (see Figure 3). In the baseline sample the correlation was
statistically significant (r=0.33, p<0.01), as it was in 2005 (r=0.26,
p<0.01), 2006 (r=0.46, p<0.01) and 2010 (r=0.47, p<0.01).
Assessment of total subscale scores over time for selected disease
sites is presented in Table 2. Consistently over time and across all disease site groups, the mean importance scores are higher than the mean
satisfaction scores. The largest differences over time between the
importance and satisfaction means are within the gynecologic disease
site, whereas the smallest differences are in the genitourinary group.
Trends in item scores
The importance and satisfaction scores for each of the topic
items in one of the disease site groups (breast) are presented in
Table 3. In general, the topics related to disease, treatments, and
side effect management (i.e., physical discomfort, appetite) are consistently rated of higher importance than the items concerning more
emotional and practical matters. Satisfaction with the information
received across all topic areas is rated as lower than importance.
These trends are consistent over time.
The correlations between the ratings of importance and satisfaction for each topic item are presented in Table 4. There are statistically significant correlations observed for some items, but the
pattern is not consistent over time. The correlations reported as
significant reflect low to moderate strengths in the relationship
between importance and satisfaction (highest observed correlation
coefficient = 0.499, p=0.01).
Discussion
Regular monitoring of performance, using standardized tools, can
provide indicator data for clinicians and program decision-makers to
determine where additional attention is required to achieve improvement in patient care. To be useful, this type of monitoring needs to
be feasible or manageable, relatively inexpensive, and provide relevant data. Our use of the Cancer Patient Information ImportanceSatisfaction Scale as an indicator measure has provided the
opportunity for us to gather data and produce reports easily. We have
also seen how the data can be useful in helping us understand where
our performance in providing patient information could be enhanced.
Table 1: Selected demographics of samples
Demographic characteristic
Age in years Mean
Time since
diagnosis
(in years)
Disease site
(proportion
of
participants
in sample)
2010 N = 99
60.6
59.7
60.8
61.2
62.1
60.0
64.8
14.5
14.4
13.8
13.2
12.4
12.6
13.8
Male
46.3%
41.5%
50.7%
46.7%
43.0%
37.0%
38.4%
Female
53.7%
58.5%
49.3%
53.3%
57.0%
63.0%
61.6%
Mean
3.1
2.1
2.2
2.8
1.6
2.6
3.5
Standard
deviation
5.4
3.8
3.9
3.4
3.0
4.6
5.8
Breast
18.7%
27.3%
26.7%
23.4%
29.0%
38.9%
30.9%
Gyne
10.8%
9.9%
7.6%
11.5%
5.0%
0.0%
4.3%
GU
12.2%
17.4%
20.4%
15.7%
28.0%
9.5%
18.1%
GI
11.9%
17.4%
20.0%
13.2%
14.0%
7.4%
10.6%
Other
46.4%
28.0%
25.3%
36.2%
24.0%
44.2%
36.1%
Standard
deviation
Gender
2003 N = 557 2004 N = 123 2005 N = 227 2006 N = 246 2008 N = 100 2009 N = 100
Figure 3:Importance and satisfaction over time: Subscale total scores
Years
2003
2004
2005
2006
2008
2009
2010
Importance
Mean Score
38.12
39.27
38.2
38.64
37.56
42.09
38.88
Importance mean
Satisfaction
Mean Score
34.99
34.64
35.96
34.35
33.69
35.22
30.4
Satisfaction mean
Pearson
Correlation
Coefficient
.332**
.154
.299**
.459**
-.56
-.20
.470**
Sample Size
(N)
557
124
230
247
100
101
101
48
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
250 CONJ • RCSIO Fall/Automne 2013
** P<0.01
doi:10.5737/1181912x234247253
Table 2: Mean total subscale scores over time for importance and satisfaction
Disease site group
Breast
Gynecologic
Genitourinary
Gastrointestinal
Other (all remaining
disease sites)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2008
2009
2010
N
103
32
60
55
29
34
27
Importance
38.6
39.0
40.1
39.9
39.1
41.8
40.2
Satisfaction
35.3
38.0
36.0
34.2
34.1
36.6
29.7
60
12
17
26
5
*
5
Importance
40.6
41.8
40.0
39.4
41.8
*
43.3
Satisfaction
32.8
35.8
34.8
35.5
33.6
*
29.0
67
21
46
37
28
7
14
Importance
37.4
37.0
35.4
36.0
34.7
43.4
39.6
Satisfaction
36.4
35.6
35.2
34.5
31.5
26.9
31.5
N
N
N
62
21
45
31
14
6
10
Importance
40.2
40.1
40.1
39.9
37.4
42.2
36.6
Satisfaction
36.0
32.0
32.0
36.7
35.2
33.7
32.9
N
258
34
57
85
24
33
32
Importance
37.0
39.6
37.3
39.2
38.2
42.2
36.5
Satisfaction
35.1
32.0
35.2
33.9
32.2
36.1
28.1
* No participants in gynecologic disease site group
Table 3: Breast cancer disease site group across time: Individual item mean scores by year
Items (topics)
Medical condition
Possible side effects of cancer
Treatment choices available
Dimension
rated
Item mean scores by year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2008
2009
2010
Importance
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.6
3.9
4.0
4.0
Satisfaction
3.6
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.6
3.7
3.5
Importance
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.7
3.7
4.0
3.9
Satisfaction
3.4
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.5
3.3
Importance
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.9
Satisfaction
3.3
3.7
3.4
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
Possible side effects of treatment Importance
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.9
Satisfaction
3.5
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.6
3.5
3.4
Importance
3.3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.2
3.7
3.5
Satisfaction
3.1
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.8
3.2
2.8
What to do to relieve physical
discomfort
Importance
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.8
Satisfaction
3.3
3.5
3.3
3.2
3.6
3.3
3.2
Diet and nutrition
Importance
3.2
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.3
Satisfaction
2.8
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.7
3.0
2.6
Supplies and equipment you
might use at home
Importance
3.0
3.2
3.1
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.5
Satisfaction
2.9
3.2
3.2
2.9
3.1
3.1
2.4
Counselling services available
Importance
2.8
2.8
2.8
3.2
2.8
3.3
3.1
Satisfaction
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.7
3.2
2.6
How to speak to another
individual diagnosed with cancer
Importance
2.6
2.4
2.7
2.9
2.8
2.9
3.0
Satisfaction
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.8
2.8
Alternative therapies for cancer
Importance
2.8
3.1
3.2
3.1
2.5
3.2
2.7
Satisfaction
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.6
2.1
2.3
2.2
Importance
2.3
2.2
2.7
2.8
2.1
2.7
2.6
Satisfaction
2.6
2.6
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.2
Possible emotional reactions
Self-help groups
doi:10.5737/1181912x234247253
CONJ • RCSIO Fall/Automne 2013 251
Table 4: Pearson product correlation coefficients between importance and satisfaction item scores
Item (topic)
2003
N = 557
2004
N = 123
2005
N = 227
2006
N = 246
2008
N = 100
2009
N = 100
2010
N = 99
Medical condition
0.234**
0.015
0.235**
0.479**
0.053
0.013
0.456**
Possible side effects of cancer
0.278**
0.041
0.098
0.463**
0.111
0.050
0.281*
Treatment choices available
0.302**
0.016
0.091
0.323**
-0.080
0.079
0.499**
Possible side effects of treatment
0.296**
0.187*
0.249**
0.391**
0.166
0.183
0.201
Possible emotional reactions
0.246**
0.186*
0.257**
0.322**
-0.151
0.067
0.442**
What to do to relieve physical discomfort
0.265**
0.062
0.179**
0.319**
0.186
0.022
0.253*
Diet and nutrition
0.218**
0.054
0.140**
0.299**
0.064
0.067
0.201
Supplies and equipment you might use at home
0.403**
0.246*
0.402**
0.343**
0.358**
0.084
0.252*
Counselling services available
0.300**
0.153
0.245**
0.406**
-0.114
-0.004
0.342**
How to speak with another individual who has cancer
0.314**
0.228*
0.271**
0.387**
0.007
-0.015
0.353**
Alternative therapies for cancer
0.122**
0.103
0.297**
0.329**
-0.085
-0.071
0.369**
Self-help groups
0.286**
0.220*
0.286**
0.389**
0.097
-0.072
0.147
* significant @ P < 0.05 (2 tailed)
** significant @ P < 0.01 (2 tailed)
The measurement tool provides two types of data—scale scores
regarding importance and satisfaction, as well as individual topic
item scores. The former can be used to track performance at an
overall program level while the latter can be used to review performance concerning individual topic areas. Results could also be
explored by analyzing the data from selected groups (age, gender)
to provide insight for tailoring or targeting education programs. For
example, we suspect that the observations about satisfaction in the
gynecologic group (all women) versus the genitourinary group (primary men with prostate cancer) are influenced to some extent by
gender. Previous work showed that women rate the importance and
satisfaction regarding information differently than do men (Fitch &
McAndrew, 2011).
We have been able to gather data on an annual basis with approximately 100 patients. This is adequate for presenting a picture of
our performance as a centre, but has raised questions about the frequency of data collection and the sample size for individual disease
site groupings. More frequent data collection has been suggested to
make it easier to see the potential issues as soon as possible, as
well as to see improvements when a new intervention is offered.
Increasing the frequency of data collection would also increase
the number of patient observations within each disease site. We
also realize the need to translate the measurement tool if we are to
access the perspectives of our non-English speaking patients.
From a cancer program perspective, we believe the key focus
ought to be on ensuring the patients who see a specific topic as
important are satisfied with the information they receive about it.
The correlation data are helpful in looking at this issue. Given the
variation observed in these data, a key future consideration needs
to be developing strategies to tailor the provision of information
for the individual. The challenge remains how to do this in a busy
ambulatory setting within the context of a clinical appointment.
The overall decline in the 2010 satisfaction results stimulated
concerted reflection by those engaged in patient education strategies for the centre. Of note is that there have been significant
increases in patient numbers and the complexities of treatment in
252 CONJ • RCSIO Fall/Automne 2013
the cancer centre and staff have indicated an increasing difficulty
in managing their workloads. Their capacity to engage in one-onone teaching has been reduced. Additionally, we have been engaged
in physical plant renovations at the cancer centre and the Patient
Library/Resource Centre has been affected (i.e., closed prior to moving). These environmental changes are likely reflected in the lower
2010 satisfaction scores. We are currently undertaking a redesign
of our care delivery model and these data will be used to stimulate
the planning for additional group teaching sessions and enhanced
access to resources using technology. Our experience in discussing the data with colleagues has emphasized the value of reporting
data to those who can act upon them and the value of having a clear
route for reporting the indicator.
Future practice and research considerations
It should be noted, the Cancer Patient Information ImportanceSatisfaction Scale is designed as an indicator measure. It is not
meant to be an assessment of program or teaching effectiveness or
knowledge gained. The items were selected based on existing literature describing topics of importance generally to cancer patients
and were not meant to be comprehensive. Future use of this measurement tool by other cancer centres should be as an indicator
device.
The data from this indicator work are useful from a patient education perspective for gathering ideas about differences based on
demographics. For example, when the data are reviewed by site
we can see some differences, specifically in the gynecologic group
where the largest differences over time between importance and
satisfaction means were observed. This may be an opportunity to
conduct further research concerning the specific needs of these
patients and to better understand from their perspective what was
lacking and could have been improved to increase satisfaction.
The data are also important from a patient education perspective in that the topics related to disease, treatments, and side
effects management (i.e., physical discomfort, appetite) were consistently rated of higher importance than the items concerning more
doi:10.5737/1181912x234247253
emotional and practical matters. This is relevant when making decisions about where to focus patient education interventions and new
programs. In particular, it could be used to stimulate investigation
about what information should be provided by the primary provider (i.e., nurse, physician) versus what could be provided through
a group avenue or made generally available to the public within the
cancer centre.
Further investigation could be conducted to determine what factors affect patient satisfaction with information provided specifically. Questions could be explored concerning when information is
given, the format used to present the information, the specific competencies of the health care providers, or the tailoring of information for the individual. Another factor to consider is whether the
expectations of patients related to the amount and quality of information have changed as a result of the prolific offering of resources
via the Internet. Are patients now equipped with more information
than their clinicians can speak to in a typical patient visit? Is this
impacting satisfaction scores?
Finally, the practice standards related to having conversations
with patients needs to be investigated. There is likely variation in
the actual practice of having conversations and what topics are discussed. We have started looking at the nature of the conversation
that occurs between patients and providers about the availability
of services and the role they could play in helping individuals cope
with the illness. We believe clear expectations need to be incorporated into their scope of practice, as a way of encouraging better
communication with patients and sharing relevant and meaningful
information. Our Patient and Family Support Program is working in
collaboration with Patient Education to explore the idea of a standard question about the type of information a patient wants being
asked at every appointment.
Conclusion
Clearly, having relevant and meaningful information is important
to cancer patients. Cancer programs need to know how well they are
performing in the dimension of quality care around the provision of
information to patients. Our experience has illustrated that regular
monitoring with a valid indicator tool can be done easily and inexpensively. Furthermore, having data about performance is helpful in
stimulating discussions about improvements in care.
REFERENCES
Accreditation Canada (2010). Standards: Cancer care and oncology
services. Ottawa: Author.
Balmer, C. (2005). The Information requirements of people with
cancer: Where to go after the “patient information leaflet?”
Cancer Nurs, 28, 36–44.
Berwick, D.M., James, B., & Coye, M.J. (2003). Connections between
quality measurement and improvement. Med Care, 41,130–138.
Brashers, D., Goldsmith, D., & Hsieh, E. (2002). Information seeking
and avoiding in health contexts. Human Communication
Research, 28, 258–71.
Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology. (2010). Standards
of psychosocial health services for persons with cancer and
their
families.
Retrieved
from
http://www.capo.ca/eng/
CAPOstandards.pdf
Canadian Oncology Nursing Association. (2010). Practice standards
and competencies for the specialized oncology nurse. Retrieved
from http://www.cano-acio.ca/conep
Coulter, A., & Ellins, J. (2007). Effectiveness of strategies for
informing educating and involving patients. BMJ, 335, 24–27.
Fitch, M.I., Armstrong, J., & Tsang, S. (2008). Patients’ experiences
with cognitive changes after chemotherapy. Can Oncol Nurs J,
18(4), 180–185.
Fitch, M.I., Gray, R.E., Godel, R., & Labrecque, M. (2008). Young
women’s experiences with breast cancer: An imperative for
tailored information and support. Can Oncol Nurs J, 18(2), 74–79.
Fitch, M., & Green, E. (2005). Measuring patient satisfaction across
the cancer system. Support Care Cancer, 13(6), 472.
Fitch, M.I., & McAndrew, A. (2011). A performance measurement
tool for cancer patient information and satisfaction. Journal of
Cancer Education, 26(4), 612–618.
Fitch, M.I., Mings, D., & Lee, A. (2008). Exploring patient initiated
strategies for living with treatment–related fatigue. Can Oncol
Nurs J, 18(3), 124–131.
Fitch, M.I., Nicoll, I., & Keller-Olaman, S. (2007). Breast cancer
information dissemination strategies: Finding out what works.
Can Oncol Nurs J, 17(4), 206–211.
Fitch, M.I., Page B., & Porter, H. (2009). Supportive Care Framework:
A Foundation for Person-Centred Care. Pembroke, ON: Pappin
Communications.
James, N., Daniels, H., Rahman, R., McConkey, C., Derry, J., & Young,
A. (2007). A study of information seeking by cancer patients and
their carers. Clin Oncol, 19, 356–362.
doi:10.5737/1181912x234247253
Leyton, G.M., Boulton, M., Moynihan, C., James, A., Mossman,
J., Boudioni, M., & McPherson, K. (2000). Cancer patients
information needs and information seeking behavior: In depth
interview study. BMJ, 320, 909–913.
Mainz, J., Krog, B.R., Bjornshave, B., & Bartels, P. (2004). Nationwide
continuous improvement using clinical indicators: The Danish
national indicator project. Intern J Qual Health Care, 16(Suppl 1),
i45–50.
Mills, M.E., & Davidson, R. (2002). Cancer patients’ sources of
information: Use and quality issues. Psycho-oncology, 11,
371–378.
Mills, M.E., & Sullivan, K. (1999). The importance of information
giving for patients newly diagnosed with cancer: A review of the
literature. J Clin Nurs, 8, 631–642.
Miransky, J. (2003). The development of a benchmarking system for
a cancer patient population. J Nurs Care Qual, 18, 38–42.
Moody, R. (2003). Overcoming barriers to delivering information to
cancer patients. Br.J Nurs, 12, 1281–1287.
Rutten, L.J.F., Arora, N.K., Bakos, A.D., Aziz, N., & Rowland, J. (2005).
Information needs and sources of information among cancer
patients: A systematic review of research (1980–2003). Patient
Educ Couns, 57, 250–261.
Skalla, K.A., Bakitas, M., Furstenberg, C.T., Ahles, T., & Henderson,
J.V. (2004). Patients’ need for information about cancer therapy.
Oncol Nurs Forum, 31, 313–319.
Smith, C., Dickens, C., & Edwards, S. (2005). Provision of information
for cancer patients: An appraisal and review. Eur J Cancer Care,
14, 282–288.
Steele, R., & Fitch, M.I. (2008). Supportive care needs of women with
gynecological cancer. Cancer Nurs, 284–291.
Sutherland, G., Hoey, L., White, V., Jefford, M., & Hegarly, S. (2008).
How does a cancer education program impact people with cancer
and their family and friends? J Cancer Educ, 23, 126–132.
Van der Molen, B. (2000). Relating information needs to the cancer
experience 1. Jenny’s story: A cancer narrative. Eur J Cancer
Care, 9, 41–47.
Vlossak, D., & Fitch, M.I. (2008). Multiple myeloma: The patient’s
perspective. Can Oncol Nurs J, 18(3),141–151.
Weingart, S.N., Price, J., Duncombe, D., Connor, M., Sommer, K.,
Connelly, K.A., et al. (2007). Patient reported safety and quality
of care in outpatient oncology. Jt Comm, J Qual Patient Saf, 33,
83–94.
CONJ • RCSIO Fall/Automne 2013 253