4.4 Article

Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer

Journal

HEALTH EXPECTATIONS
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages 1512-1522

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/hex.13136

Keywords

cancer; patient experience; qualitative; service evaluation; urgent pathway

Funding

  1. NHS England Specialised Commissioning, North East and North Cumbria

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Timeliness is viewed as a key feature of health-care quality. Internationally, this is challenging. In England, cancer waiting time targets are currently not being met. For example, between 2015 and 2018 only 71% of patients with upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer started treatment within the recommended 62 days of referral. Objective We explored patients' experiences to identify areas for service improvement. Design Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Setting and participants Twenty patients who were referred through the urgent (two-week) GP referral route and were within six months of receiving first treatment were recruited. Data analysis Data from the interviews were analysed thematically. Results Four themes were developed: organization of care; diagnosis; support; and views and expectations of the NHS. Patients described cross-cutting issues such as complex and varied pathways and uncertainty about what would happen next. They felt daunted by the intensity and speed of investigations. They were presented with a recommended course of action rather than options and had little involvement in decision making. They were grateful for care, reluctant to complain and resigned to the status quo. Discussion and conclusions In order to meet patient needs, the NHS needs to improve communication and streamline pathways. Future cancer pathways also need to be designed to support shared decision making, be truly person-centred and informed by patient experience.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available