首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Risk factors for patient-reported errors during cancer follow-up: Results from a national survey in Denmark
Affiliation:1. Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, NY 14263, United States;2. Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA 30322, United States;3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, United States;4. College of Medicine, Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, Erie PA 16509, United States;5. Department of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14214, United States;6. Department of Gynecologic Oncology,Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, 14263, United States;1. Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, United States;2. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84113, United States;3. Department of Institutional Research and Reporting, Salt Lake Community College, Salt Lake City, UT 84123, United States;4. Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 77555, United States;5. Department of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Salt Lake City Primary Children’s Hospital, UT 84132, United States;6. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, United States;1. University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI, 9613, USA;2. CESP Inserm, Villejuif, France;3. Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, F-94805, France;4. Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia;5. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Italy;1. Section of Epidemiology & Biostatistics (Institute of Cancer & Pathology (LICAP) and Institute of Data Analytics (LIDA)), Leeds, UK;2. Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, UK;1. Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States;2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States;3. Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Institute for Health Research, Denver, CO, United States;4. Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, United States;5. School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States;1. EPIUnit − Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, Rua das Taipas, no 135, 4050-600 Porto, Portugal;2. Registo Oncológico Regional do Norte (RORENO) − Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal;3. Departamento de Ciências da Saúde Pública e Forenses e Educação Médica, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto, Al. Prof. Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal
Abstract:Due to an increased cancer survival, more cancer patients are referred to follow-up after primary treatment. Knowledge of patient safety during follow-up is sparse.ObjectiveTo examine patient-reported errors during cancer follow-up and identify factors associated with errors.DesignA national survey on cancer patients’ experiences of treatment and aftercare was conducted in 2012, about two years following cancer diagnosis (N = 6914). Associations between patient-reported errors during follow-up and covariates were examined using multiple logistic regression. Qualitative responses were analysed using text analysis.ResultsThis study included 3731 patients, representing a response rate of 64%. Overall, 27.6% of patients reported at least one error during cancer follow-up. 11.7% reported that important information was missing at follow-up consultations; 9.8% were not called in for a follow-up as expected; 16.7% reported that the doctor/nurse handling the follow-up consultation were ill-prepared on their course of disease. Other errors were reported by 4.7%. Patients who reported errors in follow-up were more likely to report an error or complication during primary cancer treatment, not having one health professional with oversight and responsibility for their overall follow-up pathway, be younger, have a diagnosis of rare cancer, poorer self-rated health and high usage of healthcare services.ConclusionWorkflows related to handling of test results, referrals, bookings and medical records have to be improved. Introduction of one particular healthcare professional responsible for the patients’ follow-up may result in fewer patient-reported errors however interventions are needed to examine this. Patients prone to errors should be subject to particular attention.
Keywords:Patient safety  Errors  Adverse events  Cancer  Follow-up  Survey  Patient-experiences
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号