Concordance of Patient and Caregiver Reports on the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Care.

Q1 Nursing
Rachel D. Havyer, M. van Ryn, Patrick M. Wilson, L. Bangerter, J. Griffin
{"title":"Concordance of Patient and Caregiver Reports on the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Care.","authors":"Rachel D. Havyer, M. van Ryn, Patrick M. Wilson, L. Bangerter, J. Griffin","doi":"10.1200/JOP.19.00136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\nWe aimed to better understand how similarly patients with colorectal cancer and caregivers view care quality and to assess factors that may influence concordance.\n\n\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\nWe conducted a secondary analysis of paired patient and caregiver quality ratings of colorectal cancer care in three specific domains: surgery, chemotherapy overall, and chemotherapy nursing. Agreement was assessed with difference scores, concordance with Gwet second-order agreement statistics (AC2), and variation in agreement with stratified analyses. We examined whether the care experiences of patients and caregivers were associated with top-box (most-positive) ratings and examined variations in concordance on the basis of the presence of a top-box score.\n\n\nRESULTS\nFour hundred seventeen patient-caregiver dyads completed the surveys. Quality-of-care ratings were positively skewed, with most dyads indicating top-box ratings. Patient and caregiver care experiences were highly associated with top-box ratings. Overall patient-caregiver concordance was very high for all three care domains (surgery: AC2, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.83 to 0.90]; chemotherapy overall: AC2, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88]; chemotherapy nursing: AC2, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.94]). Stratified analyses of patient and caregiver characteristics did not identify any patterns that consistently affected concordance. The concordance statistic significantly decreased for all three outcomes (P < .001), however, when the patient or caregiver assessed quality as anything other than top box.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nCaregiver and patient reports on care quality were highly concordant for top-box care and did not vary with patient or caregiver factors. Additional exploration is needed to identify reasons for increased variability when the quality scores were less than a top-box response.","PeriodicalId":54273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oncology Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":"JOP1900136"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1200/JOP.19.00136","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oncology Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.19.00136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

PURPOSE We aimed to better understand how similarly patients with colorectal cancer and caregivers view care quality and to assess factors that may influence concordance. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a secondary analysis of paired patient and caregiver quality ratings of colorectal cancer care in three specific domains: surgery, chemotherapy overall, and chemotherapy nursing. Agreement was assessed with difference scores, concordance with Gwet second-order agreement statistics (AC2), and variation in agreement with stratified analyses. We examined whether the care experiences of patients and caregivers were associated with top-box (most-positive) ratings and examined variations in concordance on the basis of the presence of a top-box score. RESULTS Four hundred seventeen patient-caregiver dyads completed the surveys. Quality-of-care ratings were positively skewed, with most dyads indicating top-box ratings. Patient and caregiver care experiences were highly associated with top-box ratings. Overall patient-caregiver concordance was very high for all three care domains (surgery: AC2, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.83 to 0.90]; chemotherapy overall: AC2, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88]; chemotherapy nursing: AC2, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.94]). Stratified analyses of patient and caregiver characteristics did not identify any patterns that consistently affected concordance. The concordance statistic significantly decreased for all three outcomes (P < .001), however, when the patient or caregiver assessed quality as anything other than top box. CONCLUSION Caregiver and patient reports on care quality were highly concordant for top-box care and did not vary with patient or caregiver factors. Additional exploration is needed to identify reasons for increased variability when the quality scores were less than a top-box response.
癌症大肠癌患者和护理人员护理质量报告的一致性。
目的我们旨在更好地了解癌症结直肠癌患者和护理人员如何看待护理质量,并评估可能影响一致性的因素。材料和方法我们对癌症结直肠护理的配对患者和护理人员在三个特定领域的质量评分进行了二次分析:手术、整体化疗和化疗护理。一致性通过差异评分、与Gwet二阶一致性统计(AC2)的一致性以及与分层分析的一致性变化进行评估。我们检查了患者和护理人员的护理经历是否与顶框(最积极)评分相关,并根据顶框评分的存在检查了一致性的变化。结果我们的117名患者-护理人员二人组完成了调查。护理质量评分呈正偏态,大多数二人组的评分最高。患者和护理人员的护理经历与最高评分高度相关。在所有三个护理领域(手术:AC2,0.87[95%CI,0.83至0.90];化疗:AC2、0.84[95%CI、0.79至0.88];化疗护理:AC2和0.91[95%CI,0.87至0.94]),患者-护理者的总体一致性非常高。对患者和护理者特征的分层分析没有发现任何一致影响一致性的模式。然而,当患者或护理人员将质量评估为除顶框之外的任何内容时,所有三种结果的一致性统计数据均显著降低(P<.001)。结论护理人员和患者的护理质量报告在顶级护理中高度一致,且不因患者或护理人员因素而异。当质量分数小于顶部框响应时,需要进行额外的探索,以确定可变性增加的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Oncology Practice
Journal of Oncology Practice Nursing-Oncology (nursing)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Journal of Oncology Practice (JOP) provides necessary information and insights to keep oncology practice current on changes and challenges inherent in delivering quality oncology care. All content dealing with understanding the provision of care—the mechanics of practice—is the purview of JOP. JOP also addresses an expressed need of practicing physicians to have compressed, expert opinion addressing common clinical problems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信