Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T05:49:29.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A review of the results from a patient experience survey of the palliative radiotherapy bone metastases service

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2023

Sarah Jayne Griffiths Open the ORCID record for Sarah Jayne Griffiths [Opens in a new window]
Sarah Jayne Griffiths*
Affiliation:
The Radiotherapy Department, Bristol Cancer Institute, Bristol Hematology and Oncology Centre, Horfield Road, Bristol, BS2 8ED, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Sarah Jayne Griffiths, The Radiotherapy Department, Bristol Cancer Institute, Bristol Hematology and Oncology Centre, Horfield Road, Bristol, BS2 8ED, UK. E-mail: Sarah.Griffiths@UHBW.nhs.UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

A patient experience survey was undertaken as part of the role of the Macmillan Consultant Therapy Radiographer for the bone and brain metastases patients to inform future development of the service.

Method:

A questionnaire was developed and approved by the Trust’s local Questionnaire, Interview and Survey Group to survey the experiences and satisfaction of the service including the informed consent process, radiotherapy appointments and overall experience and satisfaction. The survey used qualitative and quantitative methods, including Likert Scales and free comment boxes. The responses were analysed by counting the frequency of each response and identifying any themes in free text responses.

Results:

Most patients were satisfied with the consent process with 1/36 patients reporting a lack of understandable information and 4/36 wanting more side effect information. The option of plan and treat was a preference of 53% of patients due to travelling back and forth to the centre; however, only 6% stated that they wanted two separate appointments. Ninety-four percent of patients felt that they had complete confidence and trust in the professional who consented them and 86% did not feel fully involved in the decision-making process. Overall, the service was rated as 10/10 by 61% of patients (n = 36).

Conclusions:

The patients surveyed were satisfied with their experience of the Palliative Radiotherapy Service; however, it needs to be developed further to meet the needs and expectations of the service users.

Keywords

Consultant Therapy Radiographerpatient surveypatient experience and satisfactionpalliative radiotherapy treatment pathway
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 22 , 2023 , e87
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Jayarangaiah, A, Kemp, AK, Kariyanna, PT. Bone Metastasis. National Library of Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507911/ Accessed 19th July 2022.Google Scholar
Jones, A, Simone, C. Palliative radiotherapy for advanced malignancies in a changing oncologic landscape: guiding principles and practice implementation. Ann Palliat Med 2014; 3 (3): 192–202.Google Scholar
Job, M, Holt, T, Bernard, A. Reducing radiotherapy waiting times for palliative patients: the role of the Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist. J Med Radiat Sci 2017; 64: 274–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, S. The role of the Consultant Radiographer in facilitating rapid access to palliative radiotherapy. Radiography 2021; 27 (4): 994–999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Royal College of Radiologists. Guide to job planning in clinical oncology. https://www.rcr.ac.uk/system/files/publication/field_publication_files/bfco153_jobplanning.pdf Accessed 15th July 2022.Google Scholar
Coulter, A, Locock, L, Ziebland, S, et al. Collecting data on patient experience is not enough: they must be used to improve care. BMJ 2014; 348: g2225. https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2225 Accessed 25th July 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, DM, James, B, Coye, MJ. Connections between quality measurement and improvement. Med Care 2003; 41: I30–I38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaVela, S, Gallan, A. Evaluation and measurement of patient experience. Patient Experience Journal. 2014; 1 (1): 28–36. doi: 10.35680/2372-0247.1003.Google Scholar
Khandelwal, M. Everything you need to know about the Likert Scale. https://www.surveysensum.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-likert-scale/ Accessed 25th July 2022.Google Scholar
Garratt, A, Helgeland, J, Gulbrandsen, P. Five-point scales outperform 10-point scales in a randomized comparison of item scaling for the Patient Experiences Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 200–207. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office for National Statistics. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection survey technical article: waves and lags of COVID-19 in England. June 2021. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveytechnicalarticle/wavesandlagsofcovid19inenglandjune2021#:∼:text=The%20first%20wave%20of%20COVID%2D19%20in%20England&text=The%20first%20wave%20likely%20peaked,May%20and%204%20July%202020. Accessed 25th July 2022.Google Scholar
CustomerThermometer. Average Survey Response Rate – What you need to know https://www.customerthermometer.com/customer-surveys/average-survey-response-rate/#:∼:text=A%20survey%20response%20rate%20of,range%20are%20far%20more%20typical. Accessed 20th July 2022.Google Scholar
Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland. Issues in professional practice: informed consent. https://www.asgbi.org.uk/userfiles/file/ipp/_iipp-informed-consent-may-2013-as-gone-to-press.pdf Accessed 15th July 2022.Google Scholar
Dorrah, TE. Use the Teach-Back Method to Confirm Patient Understanding. June 16, 2016. https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/121632/use-teach-back-method-confirm-patient-understanding Accessed 15th July 2022.Google Scholar
Paul, C, Carey, P., Anderson, A, et al. Cancer patients’ concerns regarding access to cancer care: perceived impact of waiting times along the diagnosis and treatment journey. Eur J Cancer Care 2012; 21: 321–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, A. Delivery of external beam radiotherapy. Retrieved from www.avon.nhs.uk/dms/Default.aspx?sid=0&s2id=1303. Accessed 25th June 2022.Google Scholar
Royal College of Radiologists. UK workforce census report 2020. https://www.rcr.ac.uk/system/files/publication/field_publication_files/clinical-oncology-uk-workforce-census-2020-report.pdf Accessed 25th July 2022.Google Scholar
Chandra, S, Mohammadnezhad, M, Ward, PR. Trust and communication in a doctor-patient relationship: A literature review. J Healthcare Commun 2018; 3 (3:36). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Masoud-Mohammadnezhad/publication/327575093_Trust_and_Communication_in_a_Doctor-_Patient_Relationship_A_Literature_Review/links/5ca3d2efa6fdcc12ee8ed438/Trust-and-Communication-in-a-Doctor-Patient-Relationship-A-Literature-Review.pdf. Accessed 10th July 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuffield Trust. Do patients feel involved in decisions about their care? https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/do-patients-feel-involved-in-decisions-about-their-care. Accessed 31st August 2022.Google Scholar
Corner, J, Wagland, R, Glaser, A et al. Qualitative analysis of patients’ feedback from a PROMs survey of cancer patients in England. BMJ Open 2013; 3 (4): e002316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Griffiths supplementary material

Griffiths supplementary material

Download Griffiths supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 205.2 KB