The System for Patient Assessment of Cancer Experiences (SPACE): a cross-sectional study examining feasibility and acceptability
- 6 Downloads
Continuous quality improvement in cancer care relies on the collection of accurate data on the quality of care provided. It is suggested that such an approach should: (i) measure the patient’s care experience throughout the cancer trajectory; (ii) use items and response scales that measure concrete and specific aspects of care; (iii) minimise recall bias; (iv) minimise the burden placed on patients for providing data; (v) minimise administrative burden; and (vi) collect actionable data. The System for Patient Assessment of Cancer Experiences (SPACE) was developed to meet these objectives. This study describes the feasibility and acceptability of the SPACE in a sample of oncology outpatients.
The SPACE was examined in four medical oncology centres. Adult patients were approached by a research assistant prior to their scheduled consultation. Consenting participants completed the SPACE on a computer tablet. Items were tailored to the patient’s cancer treatment phase.
Of the eligible participants, 1143 consented (83%) and 1056 completed the survey (92%). The average time taken to complete the survey was 6 min 28 s. A large proportion of the sample indicated that the survey was acceptable (88–93% across three acceptability items).
This study demonstrates that the SPACE can be feasibly administered each time a patient comes to the oncology unit and is acceptable to patients. The SPACE could be used to quantify the care experiences which patients receive during their cancer care. The resulting data could be used to set benchmarks and improve the performance of cancer clinics.
KeywordsNeoplasms Quality of health care Process assessment (health care) Outpatients Patient care
RSF, MC, HT and AP were involved in conceptualisation of the study. RSF, BH and HT developed the methodology and oversaw data collection. BH performed the data analysis. All authors were involved in drafting, review and editing the manuscript.
This research was supported by a Cancer Council New South Wales Program Grant (PG16-09) and infrastructure funding from the Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI).
Compliance with ethical standards
Implied consent was obtained through initiation and completion of the survey.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Anderson M, Perrin A (2017) Tech adoption climbs among older adults. Pew Research Center, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- 4.Beattie M, Murphy DJ, Atherton I, Lauder W (2015) Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review. Systematic Reviews 4Google Scholar
- 5.Bryant J, Carey M, Sanson-Fisher R, Turon H, Wei A, Kuss B (2017) The patients’ perspective: hematological cancer patients’ experiences of adverse events as part of care. Journal of Patient Safety EpubGoogle Scholar
- 6.Bureau of Health Information (2015) Patient perspectives—hospital care for people with cancer. BHI, SydneyGoogle Scholar
- 7.Bureau of Health Information (2016) NSW patient survey: outpatient cancer clinics. NSW Health, ChatswoodGoogle Scholar
- 8.Cancer Australia (2014) Recommendations for the identification and management of fear of cancer recurrence in adult cancer survivors. Cancer Australia, SydneyGoogle Scholar
- 9.Cancer Australia (2014) Clinical guidance for responding to suffering in adults with cancer. Cancer Australia, SydneyGoogle Scholar
- 10.Carey M, Boyes A, Bryant J, Turon H, Clinton-McHarg T, Sanson-Fisher R (2017) The patient perspective on errors in cancer care: results of a cross-sectional survey. Journal of Patient Safety EpubGoogle Scholar
- 11.Couët N, Desroches S, Robitaille H, Vaillancourt H, Leblanc A, Turcotte S, Elwyn G, Légaré F (2013) Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. Health Expect 18:542–561CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Fradgley EA, Paul CL, Bryant J, Roos IA, Henskens FA, Paul DJ (2014) Consumer participation in quality improvements for chronic disease care: development and evaluation of an interactive patient-centered survey to identify preferred service initiatives. J Med Internet Res 16:e292CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Health Services Advisory Group (2018) CAHPS Hospital Survey (HCAHPS) quality assurance guidelines, version 13.0. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- 22.Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2001) Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. National Academy Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
- 27.National Breast Cancer Centre, National Cancer Control Initiative (2003) Clinical practice guidelines for the psychosocial care of adults with cancer. National Breast Cancer Centre, CamperdownGoogle Scholar
- 28.National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2014) Clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines) for distress management NCCNGoogle Scholar
- 29.National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2004) Guidance on cancer service: improving supportive and palliative care for adults with cancer. NICE, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 30.Picker NRC (2008) Eight dimensions of patient-centred care. NRC Picker, BostonGoogle Scholar
- 31.Paul D, Wallis M, Henskens F, Nolan K (2013) QuON—a generic platform for the collation and sharing of web survey data. WEBIST:111–116Google Scholar
- 32.England PH (2016) The NHS atlas of variation in healthcare: reducing unwarranted variation to increase value and improve quality. PHE, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 33.Health Q (2014) National Cancer Patient Experience Survey 2014 National Report. NHS England, LeedsGoogle Scholar