Search

Over half of all new cancer cases in Alberta are diagnosed among people aged 65+ years, a group that encompasses vast variation. Patient-reported experience measures are routinely collected within Cancer Care Alberta; however, the specific consideration of the needs and concerns of older Albertans with cancer is lacking. In 2021, 2204 adults who had received treatment at a cancer centre in Alberta completed the Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey (AOPSS). In this study, we explored the age differences in satisfaction across six dimensions of person-centred care and in the proportions of unmet needs across eight types of issues, with specific attention to older adults. Using three age groups (18–39, 40–64, 65+), only the physical comfort dimension showed significantly lower satisfaction among those aged 65+ years. Using five age groups (18–39, 40–64, 65–74, 75–84, 85+), significantly lower levels of satisfaction were found related to ‘physical comfort’ for those aged 65–74 and 75–84, ‘coordination and continuity of care’ for those aged 75–84 and 85+, and ‘information, communication, and education’ for those aged 85+. Therefore, grouping together all older adults aged 65+ years obscured lower levels of satisfaction with some dimensions of person-centred care among those aged 75–84 and 85+ years. Unmet needs generally increased with age for all types of issues, with significant differences across age groups for emotional, financial, social/family, and sexual health issues. The lower levels of satisfaction and higher proportions of unmet needs call for tailored interventions to promote optimal care experiences and outcomes among older adults receiving cancer care in Alberta and their families.

Patient report outcomes are commonly collected during oncology visits to elicit symptom burden and guide management. We aimed to determine the frequency of intervention for patients undergoing radiotherapy with high symptom complexity scores and identify which factors are associated with being offered an intervention. A retrospective chart audit was completed of adult patients with cancer who had at least one radiotherapy appointment and were assigned a high symptom complexity. A total of 200 patients were included; 150 (75.0%) patients were offered an intervention for the main symptom. The most offered intervention was medications. Multivariable logistic regression showed factors associated with being offered an intervention were the following: symptom score of 9 (OR = 9.56, 95% CI 1.64–62.8) and 10 (OR = 7.90, 95% CI 1.69–38.2); palliative intent radiation (OR 3.87, 96% CI 1.46–11.1); and last review appointment (OR 6.22, 95% CI 1.84–23.3). Symptoms associated with being offered an intervention included pain (OR 22.6, 95% CI 6.47–91.1), nausea (OR 15.7, 95% CI 1.51–412), shortness of breath (OR 7.97, 95% CI 1.20–63.7), and anxiety (OR 6.69, 95% CI 1.58–31.6). This knowledge will help guide clinical practice to understand symptom burden and how we can improve our management of patients’ symptoms.

Oncology programs across Canada are reaching capacity as more Canadians are diagnosed with and treated for cancer each year. There is an increasing need to share care with family doctors, however it is unclear how this type of care impacts patient experiences, particularly while receiving active treatment. Retrospective data from the 2021 Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey (AOPSS) in Alberta, Canada was used in this study. A unique question on the Alberta survey asks patients about their family doctor’s involvement during their cancer care. Patient satisfaction across the six domains of person-centred care on the AOPSS was analyzed based on how involved a patient’s family doctor was. Compared to patients who indicated their family doctor was “Not involved”, patients with “Very involved” family doctors had significantly higher satisfaction scores in all six domains of care. The three domains which showed the largest positive impact of family doctor involvement were: Coordination & Integration of Care, Emotional Concerns, and Information, Communication & Education. The results demonstrate that involving family doctors in cancer care can be beneficial for patients. Based on the observed satisfaction increases in this study, shared care models may be preferred by many patients. These models of care can also help alleviate strain and capacity issues within cancer programs. The results could be used to support recommendations for cancer care teams to regularly involve and communicate with family doctors, to ensure that patients receive comprehensive and tailored care from all their health care providers.

Objective The cancer program in Alberta, Canada routinely collects patient-reported outcomes using the Edmonton symptom assessment system-revised (ESAS-r). The program recently launched the province's new clinical information system which has expanded functionality, allowing patients to complete symptom questionnaires remotely online, instead of completing a paper form at the clinic. This study aimed to test a modified electronic version of the ESAS-r [(e)ESAS-r] with patients, to assess the feasibility of completion and questionnaire clarity. Methods Staff, patients, and other stakeholders worked to create modified definitions for ESAS-r symptoms, to aid in patient understanding. Patient and family advisors were recruited to test the questionnaire. Participants completed an online mock-up of the (e)ESAS-r and answered questions about technical issues. One-to-one cognitive interviews were held to discuss each symptom definition in detail. Modifications were made based on the feedback and a second round of interviews was held to finalize the wording. Results In total, 19 patients and 7 family advisors participated. All but one (96.2%) completed the questionnaire without assistance and had no technical issues. Participants requested certain wording modifications and that definitions be added for all symptoms for consistency. Very few participants reported any confusion with the final definitions. Conclusions The (e)ESAS-r was tested for clarity and ease of completion and was determined to be suitable for remote online use with ambulatory cancer patients. The enhanced definitions on the new questionnaire were clear to patients and helped ensure they understood the meaning of each symptom they were asked to rate.

As the rates of cancer incidence and survival increase in Canada, more patients are living in the post-treatment survivorship phase of their cancer journey. Identifying cancer survivors’ concerns and unmet needs is important so that health care teams can provide relevant information, supports, and resources. Secondary data analysis was carried out on the Alberta patient sample from the 2016 Pan-Canadian Transitions Study survey, designed by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The top concerns for patients treated for five different cancers were examined descriptively and compared. A question about information that patients received post-treatment was also descriptively analyzed. Binary logistic regressions were conducted for each tumour group, using the top three concerns for each group as outcomes and a variety of demographic factors as independent variables. There were 1833 valid respondents in the Alberta sample. Fatigue and anxiety were top concerns for multiple tumour groups. Most patients received more information about treatment side effects than about signs of recurrence and community resources. Within certain tumour groups, younger patients had higher odds of having concerns, particularly anxiety. Awareness of the common and unique concerns experienced by cancer survivors post-treatment enables health care providers to tailor care and resources to help patients manage their symptoms and concerns. These findings address gaps in knowledge around the cancer survivorship phase and may be applicable to cancer programs and primary care providers in Alberta and beyond.

Background: In 2019, cancer patients comprised over 65% of all individuals who requested and received Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) in Canada. This descriptive study sought to understand the self-reported symptom burden and complexity of cancer patients in the 12 months prior to receiving MAID in Alberta. Methods: Between July 2017 and January 2019, 337 cancer patients received MAID in Alberta. Patient characteristics were descriptively analyzed. As such, 193 patients (57.3%) completed at least one routine symptom-reporting questionnaire in their last year of life. Mixed effects models and generalized estimating equations were utilized to examine the trajectories of individual symptoms and overall symptom complexity within the cohort over this time. Results: The results revealed that all nine self-reported symptoms, and the overall symptom complexity of the cohort, increased as patients’ MAID provision date approached, particularly in the last 3 months of life. While less than 20% of patients experienced high symptom complexity 12 months prior to MAID, this increased to 60% in the month of MAID provision. Conclusions: Cancer patients in this cohort experienced increased symptom burden and complexity leading up to their death. These findings could serve as a flag to clinicians to closely monitor advanced cancer patients’ symptoms, and provide appropriate support and interventions as needed.

Some New Car Assessment Programs (NCAPs) include pedestrian safety ratings based on crash tests. We compared 2,682 real-world Australasian pedestrian injury outcomes with pedestrian safety ratings provided by the Australasian NCAP within the speed limit areas where the collisions occurred. We found that the risk of a pedestrian fatal or severe (involving hospital treatment) injury was considerably reduced for the safest rated vehicles studied, but only in speed limit areas of 40km/h or less. From the perspective of promoting a safer system for pedestrians, these results imply that both lowered speed limits and a safer vehicle fleet are required.

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted the immediate widespread implementation of virtual care appointments in Cancer Care Alberta (CCA). This study aimed to compare patient experiences and satisfaction with in-person care provided prior to the pandemic and virtual care provided after the COVID-19 outbreak. Surveys were conducted to compare patient satisfaction, using the Your Voice Matters (YVM) experience survey, between patients in the pre-pandemic in-person (baseline) and post-outbreak (virtual) cohorts. Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) with an ordinal logistic link were used, adjusting for self-reported health status and other covariates, to investigate the association between cohort type and patient satisfaction. Despite having higher overall health status, the virtual cohort reported statistically significantly lower satisfaction than the baseline with emotional concerns, referrals and resources, and friend/family involvement in their care. Patients in the virtual cohort were much less likely to have completed a routinely used symptom-based Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) questionnaire, which may help explain satisfaction differences. The additional stressors brought about by the pandemic, as well as the mode of virtual care delivery, both likely contributed to the lower satisfaction of the virtual cohort as well. Understanding the key differences in experience between the two cohorts will inform the development of a larger virtual care strategy within CCA in the future. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Innovation & Technology lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

Understanding patient experience is essential to providing high quality, person-centered care. A real-time baseline cross-sectional study was completed to identify gaps in patient experience that can be targeted for quality improvement (QI). This study is part of PROSE (Person-centered Radiation Oncology Service Enhancement), a QI initiative developed to improve patient experience at a tertiary cancer centre Radiation Oncology (RO) Department. Data was collected using the Your Voice Matters (YVM) questionnaire. The YVM captures information on the patient’s last visit, and questions are organized based on dimensions of person-centered care. Recruitment occurred between May and August 2019 in the radiation department. Consecutive patients during the study period were approached to complete the YVM either in reference to their initial consultation or previous treatment appointment. Percent positive scores were calculated for quantitative data and a content analysis was completed for open-text data. Of 512 patients approached, a total of 400 patients participated across tumors groups. Overall, patients highly endorsed positive experiences with feeling respected by their healthcare provider. Contacting the clinic, emotional support and wait times were rated as the least positive components of experience across appointment types and tumors groups. The Lung tumour group demonstrated worse experiences across all domains during treatments compared to all other tumour groups. Gaps and differences in patient experience were demonstrated across appointment types and tumour groups. This study provides direction to effectively develop and implement QI work aimed at improving patient experience. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Policy & Measurement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens.