Factors affecting patients' trust and confidence in GPs: evidence from the English national GP patient survey.

OBJECTIVES: Patients' trust in general practitioners (GPs) is fundamental to effective clinical encounters. Associations between patients' trust and their perceptions of communication within the consultation have been identified, but the influence of patients' demographic characteristics on these associations is unknown. We aimed to investigate the relative contribution of the patient's age, gender and ethnicity in any association between patients' ratings of interpersonal aspects of the consultation and their confidence and trust in the doctor. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of English national GP patient survey data (2009). SETTING: Primary Care, England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Data from year 3 of the GP patient survey: 5 660 217 questionnaires sent to patients aged 18 and over, registered with a GP in England for at least 6 months; overall response rate was 42% after adjustment for sampling design. OUTCOME MEASURES: We used binary logistic regression analysis to investigate patients' reported confidence and trust in the GP, analysing ratings of 7 interpersonal aspects of the consultation, controlling for patients' sociodemographic characteristics. Further modelling examined moderating effects of age, gender and ethnicity on the relative importance of these 7 predictors. RESULTS: Among 1.5 million respondents (adjusted response rate 42%), the sense of 'being taken seriously' had the strongest association with confidence and trust. The relative importance of the 7 interpersonal aspects of care was similar for men and women. Non-white patients accorded higher priority to being given enough time than did white patients. Involvement in decisions regarding their care was more strongly associated with reports of confidence and trust for older patients than for younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Associations between patients' ratings of interpersonal aspects of care and their confidence and trust in their GP are influenced by patients' demographic characteristics. Taking account of these findings could inform patient-centred service design and delivery and potentially enhance patients' confidence and trust in their doctor

Inequalities in reported cancer patient experience by socio-demographic characteristic and cancer site: evidence from respondents to the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

Patient experience is a critical dimension of cancer care quality. Understanding variation in experience among patients with different cancers and characteristics is an important first step for designing targeted improvement interventions. We analysed data from the 2011/2012 English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n = 69,086) using logistic regression to explore inequalities in care experience across 64 survey questions. We additionally calculated a summary measure of variation in patient experience by cancer, and explored inequalities between patients with cancers treated by the same specialist teams. We found that younger and very old, ethnic minority patients and women consistently reported worse experiences across questions. Patients with small intestine/rarer lower gastrointestinal, multiple myeloma and hepatobiliary cancers were most likely to report negative experiences whereas patients with breast, melanoma and testicular cancer were least likely (top-to-bottom odds ratio = 1.91, P < 0.0001). There were also inequalities in experience among patients with cancers treated by the same specialty for five of nine services (P < 0.0001). Specifically, patients with ovarian, multiple myeloma, anal, hepatobiliary and renal cancer reported notably worse experiences than patients with other gynaecological, haematological, gastrointestinal and urological malignancies respectively. Initiatives to improve cancer patient experience across oncology services may be suitably targeted on patients at higher risk of poorer experience.This is the final version, originally published by Wiley in the European Journal of Cancer Care (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecc.12267/abstract)

Pre-referral GP consultations in patients subsequently diagnosed with rarer cancers: a study of patient-reported data.

BACKGROUND: Some patients with cancer experience multiple pre-diagnostic consultations in primary care, leading to longer time intervals to specialist investigations and diagnosis. Patients with rarer cancers are thought to be at higher risk of such events, but concrete evidence of this is lacking. AIM: To examine the frequency and predictors of repeat consultations with GPs in patients with rarer cancers. DESIGN AND SETTING: Patient-reported data on pre-referral consultations from three English national surveys of patients with cancer (2010, 2013, and 2014), pooled to maximise the sample size of rarer cancers. METHOD: The authors examined the frequency and crude and adjusted odds ratios for ≥3 (versus 1-2) pre-referral consultations by age, sex, ethnicity, level of deprivation, and cancer diagnosis (38 diagnosis groups, including 12 rarer cancers without prior relevant evidence). RESULTS: Among 7838 patients with 12 rarer cancers, crude proportions of patients with ≥3 pre-referral consultations ranged from >30.0% to 60.0% for patients with small intestine, bone sarcoma, liver, gallbladder, cancer of unknown primary, soft-tissue sarcoma, and ureteric cancer. The range was 15.0-30.0% for patients with oropharyngeal, anal, parotid, penile, and oral cancer. The overall proportion of responders with any cancer who had ≥3 consultations was 23.4%. Multivariable logistic regression indicated concordant patterns, with strong evidence for variation between rarer cancers (P <0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with rarer cancers experience pre-referral consultations at frequencies suggestive of middle-to-high diagnostic difficulty. The findings can guide the development of new diagnostic interventions and 'safety-netting' approaches for symptomatic presentations encountered in patients with rarer cancers.This work was supported by a Cancer Research UK Clinician Scientist Fellowship (A18180) to Georgios Lyratzopoulos

Cardiovascular polypharmacy is not associated with unplanned hospitalisation: Evidence from a retrospective cohort study

This is the final version. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.Background: Polypharmacy is often considered suggestive of suboptimal prescribing, and is associated with adverse outcomes. It is particularly common in the context of cardiovascular disease, but it is unclear whether prescribing of multiple cardiovascular medicines, which may be entirely appropriate and consistent with clinical guidance, is associated with adverse outcome. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between number of prescribed cardiovascular medicines and unplanned non-cardiovascular hospital admissions. Methods. A retrospective cohort analysis of 180,815 adult patients was conducted using Scottish primary care data linked to hospital discharge data. Patients were followed up for one year for the outcome of unplanned non-cardiovascular hospital admission. The association between number of prescribed cardiovascular medicines and hospitalisation was modelled using logistic regression, adjusting for key confounding factors including cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular morbidity and non-cardiovascular prescribing. Results: 25.4% patients were prescribed ≥1 cardiovascular medicine, and 5.7% were prescribed ≥5. At least one unplanned non-cardiovascular admission was experienced by 4.2% of patients. Admissions were more common in patients receiving multiple cardiovascular medicines (6.4% of patients prescribed 5 or 6 cardiovascular medicines) compared with those prescribed none (3.5%). However, after adjusting for key confounders, cardiovascular prescribing was associated with fewer non-cardiovascular admissions (OR 0.66 for 5 or 6 vs. no cardiovascular medicines, 95% CI 0.57-0.75). Conclusions: We found no evidence that increasing numbers of cardiovascular medicines were associated with an increased risk of unplanned non-cardiovascular hospitalisation, following adjustment for confounding. Assumptions that polypharmacy is hazardous and represents poor care should be moderated in the context of cardiovascular disease. © 2014 Appleton et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey

This is the final published version. Available from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this record.Objective: To explore why patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse experiences of care compared with those treated in other English regions. Design: Secondary analysis of the 2011/2012 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n=69 086). Setting and participants: Patients with cancer treated by the English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. Main outcome measures: 64 patient experience measures covering all aspects of cancer care (prediagnosis to discharge). Methods: Using mixed effects logistic regression, we explored whether poorer scores in London hospitals could be explained by patient case-mix (age, gender, ethnicity and cancer type). Because patients referred to tertiary centres and/or with complex medical problems may report more critical experiences, we also explored whether the experiences reported in London may reflect higher concentration of teaching hospitals in the capital. Finally, using the data from the (general) Adult Inpatients Survey, we explored whether the extent of poorer experience reported by London patients was similar for respondents to either survey. Results: For 52/64 questions, there was evidence of poorer experience in London, with the percentage of patients reporting a positive experience being lower compared with the rest of England by a median of 3.7% (IQR 2.5-5.4%). After case-mix adjustment there was still evidence for worse experience in London for 44/64 questions. In addition, adjusting for teaching hospital status made trivial difference to the case-mix-adjusted findings. There was evidence that London versus rest-of-England differences were greater for patients with cancer compared with (general) hospital inpatients for 10 of 16 questions in both the Cancer Patient Experience and the Adult Inpatients Surveys. Conclusions: Patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse care experiences and by and large these differences are not explained by patient case-mix or teaching hospital status. Efforts to improve care in London should aim to meet patient expectations and improve care quality.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)Macmillan Cancer Suppor

Inequalities in reported cancer patient experience by socio-demographic characteristic and cancer site: Evidence from respondents to the English cancer patient experience survey

This is the final published version. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record.European Journal of Cancer Care published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Patient experience is a critical dimension of cancer care quality. Understanding variation in experience among patients with different cancers and characteristics is an important first step for designing targeted improvement interventions. We analysed data from the 2011/2012 English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n = 69086) using logistic regression to explore inequalities in care experience across 64 survey questions. We additionally calculated a summary measure of variation in patient experience by cancer, and explored inequalities between patients with cancers treated by the same specialist teams. We found that younger and very old, ethnic minority patients and women consistently reported worse experiences across questions. Patients with small intestine/rarer lower gastrointestinal, multiple myeloma and hepatobiliary cancers were most likely to report negative experiences whereas patients with breast, melanoma and testicular cancer were least likely (top-to-bottom odds ratio = 1.91, P < 0.0001). There were also inequalities in experience among patients with cancers treated by the same specialty for five of nine services (P < 0.0001). Specifically, patients with ovarian, multiple myeloma, anal, hepatobiliary and renal cancer reported notably worse experiences than patients with other gynaecological, haematological, gastrointestinal and urological malignancies respectively. Initiatives to improve cancer patient experience across oncology services may be suitably targeted on patients at higher risk of poorer experience.Macmillan Cancer SupportNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Post-sampling mortality and non-response patterns in the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey: Implications for epidemiological studies based on surveys of cancer patients

This is the final version. Available on open access from Elsevier via the DOI in this recordBackground: Surveys of the experience of cancer patients are increasingly being introduced in different countries and used in cancer epidemiology research. Sampling processes, post-sampling mortality and survey non-response can influence the representativeness of cancer patient surveys. Methods: We examined predictors of post-sampling mortality and non-response among patients initially included in the sampling frame of the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey. We also compared the respondents' diagnostic case-mix to other relevant populations of cancer patients, including incident and prevalent cases. Results: Of 109,477 initially sampled cancer patients, 6273 (5.7%) died between sampling and survey mail-out. Older age and diagnosis of brain, lung and pancreatic cancer were associated with higher risk of post-sampling mortality. The overall response rate was 67% (67,713 respondents), being >70% for the most affluent patients and those diagnosed with colon or breast cancer and <50% for Asian or Black patients, those under 35 and those diagnosed with brain cancer. The diagnostic case-mix of respondents varied substantially from incident or prevalent cancer cases. Conclusions: Respondents to the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey represent a population of recently treated cancer survivors. Although patient survey data can provide unique insights for improving cancer care quality, features of survey populations need to be acknowledged when analysing and interpreting findings from studies using such data.Cancer Research U

Patient Experience Drivers of Overall Satisfaction With Care in Cancer Patients: Evidence From Responders to the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey

Background: Surveys collecting patient experience data often contain a large number of items covering a wide range of experiences. Knowing which areas to prioritize for improvements efforts can be difficult. Objective: To examine which aspects of care experience are the key drivers of overall satisfaction with cancer care. Methods: Secondary analysis of the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. Logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between overall satisfaction and 10 core questions covering aspects of experience applicable to all patients. Supplementary analyses examined a further 16 questions applying only to patients in certain groups or on specific treatment pathways. Results: Of 68 340 included patients, 58 697 (86%) rated overall satisfaction highly (8 or more out of 10). The strongest predictors of overall satisfaction across all models were responses to 2 questions on experience of care administration and care coordination (odds ratio [OR] = 2.11, 95% confidence interval [95% CI = 2.05-2.17, P < .0001; OR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.97-2.09, P < .0001, respectively, per 1 standard deviation change). Conclusion: Focusing improvement efforts on care administration and coordination has potential to improve overall satisfaction with oncological care across diverse patient groups/care pathways