Frentzel, Elizabeth

PURPOSE: The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Cancer Care Survey is a systematic assessment of health care experiences of patients with cancer. It supports comparisons among all cancer treatment settings and modalities. METHODS: Formative research included 16 focus groups with patients receiving treatment and family members; advice from a panel of oncology and quality improvement experts; and interviews with stakeholders representing oncology associations, accredited cancer centers, and community oncology practices. We conducted cognitive tests of the instrument and field tests at six cancer centers and four community oncology practices, after which the survey was finalized and obtained the CAHPS trademark. RESULTS: The survey includes 56 questions that form six core composite measures (Getting Timely Care; Supporting Patient Self-Management; Available to Provide Care and Information; Provider Communication; Care Coordination; and Courteous Office Staff); two single-item measures of family participation in care and interpreter services; and two global ratings of cancer care and the treatment team. Sixteen additional items form three supplemental composite measures: Shared Decision-Making, Keeping Patients Informed, and Access to Care. CONCLUSION: Mail-only, mail-telephone mixed-mode, and Web-mail mixed-mode data collection methods are recommended. The questionnaires and instructions for use are free and available in English and Spanish on the CAHPS Website ( www.ahrq.gov/cahps ).

227 Background: The objective of this work was to develop a reliable and valid survey measuring aspects of cancer care important to patients to be used in both inpatient and outpatient settings, and that allows comparisons of patient experiences across treatment centers and treatment modalities (medical oncology, radiation, surgery). Other objectives included testing various modes of data collection and developing a standardized sampling methodology based on ICD diagnosis and procedure codes. Methods: We conducted focus groups with patients who had received cancer treatment and with family members of cancer patients. We convened a panel of experts representing quality improvement, oncology, shared decision-making, patient safety, and patient advocacy to obtain feedback on the development of the survey. We interviewed stakeholder groups representing oncology associations to obtain feedback on focal provider, attribution and sampling. We then conducted a field test of the survey among six cancer centers around the country, conducted psychometric analyses, revised the survey, conducted a second field test among four community oncology practices in CA, re-analyzed the data, and finalized the survey. Results: Final survey content was determined using results of the formative research, psychometric analyses, and input from the CAHPS Consortium. The core survey includes 56 questions, 23 of which map to eight composites: Provider Communication, Enabling Patient Self-management, Team Available to Provide Information, Access to Care, Care Coordination, and Office Staff. Supplemental item sets include seven items assessing Shared Decision Making, four items measuring Keeping Patients Informed, and two additional Access to Care items. Mail-only, mail-telephone mixed-mode, and web-mail mixed-mode are recommended methods of data collection. The survey and all recruiting materials are available in English and Spanish. Conclusions: The CAHPS Cancer Care Survey is a rigorously developed, well-tested, reliable and valid survey of patient experiences with their cancer care. The survey and supporting materials are available free of charge on the CAHPS website (www.ahrq.gov/cahps).

274 Background: The objectives of the formative research were to identify key themes of patient-centered cancer care and determine the best method to collect data to develop the CAHPS Survey for Cancer Care Prototype. This survey seeks to measure aspects of care most important to patients and allow comparisons of those aspects across treatment centers and treatment modalities. Methods: We developed a library of 1,781 items from CAHPS and cancer care surveys. We conducted 14 focus groups with patients (including 2 conducted in Spanish) who had received cancer care in the past 12 months, and 2 focus groups involving family members of cancer patients. We met with 10 experts representing patients and survivors, or who had expertise in quality improvement, oncology, shared decision-making and patient safety to obtain feedback on the development of the survey, potential markets for the instrument, and to assist with overall strategy. Finally, we conducted separate interviews with 5 stakeholder groups representing oncology associations to obtain feedback on focal provider, attribution and sampling. Results: While the focus group results validated findings from the item library, new concepts also emerged, such as the need for having a plan of care. Patients most readily identified with a team of providers, rather than a single provider. The two most important domains to patients were (1) how well the cancer care team communicates with patients and (2) whether the cancer care team keeps patients informed about cancer treatment. Patients were also interested in care coordination, access to information, providers who are up-to-date, and shared decision-making. Stakeholder interviews noted that survey results would be most valuable if presented by treatment modality: medical, radiation, and surgical oncology. Conclusions: These findings suggest that cancer care is best for the patient when providers are knowledgeable and straightforward with medical information, yet can demonstrate empathy and compassion.

134 Background: The CAHPS Survey for Cancer Care Prototype (application for CAHPS trademark in process) represents a significant advancement towards helping cancer care providers understand patients’ experiences of care. Although a number of standard commercial surveys are in use, currently none are available that both (1) capture the aspects of care most important to patients and (2) allow comparisons of those aspects of care across treatment centers and modalities. Methods: We developed a survey instrument that incorporated patient, clinician, and other stakeholder input throughout the development process. The survey measures patients’ perceptions of observable provider behaviors that are indicative of high quality care. Field test data were collected from 1,367 of 2,826 eligible patients (48% response rate) treated with surgery, radiation, or medical oncology from 6 accredited cancer treatment centers across the US. Classical psychometric methods were used to evaluate the measurement properties of composite scales per standard CAHPS methodology. Results: Based on a priori conceptualization, patient and stakeholder input, and empirical analyses, we identified 5 composites measuring shared decision-making, exchanging information about treatment, affective communication, access to care, and patient self-management. A confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling showed an excellent fit (CFI > 0.96; RMSEA < 0.05) between the observed data and the structure for these five composites. Cronbach’s alpha for these composites ranged from 0.71-0.88, discriminant validity was good for all scales, and correlations with overall ratings of cancer care providers were moderate (0.31) to high (0.69). Evaluation of the precision with which the composites distinguish among cancer centers indicated that the measures were reliable; however, a second field test with a greater number and variety of centers will be needed to establish a standard sampling approach and confirm these results. Conclusions: We anticipate wide-spread adoption of this measure by cancer care providers to direct quality improvement efforts due to great interest and involvement in this project on the part of stakeholders.