Objective: To develop a framework for understanding factors affecting the use of patient survey data in quality improvement. Design: Qualitative interviews with senior health professionals and managers and a review of the literature. Setting: A quality improvement collaborative in Minnesota, USA involving teams from eight medical groups, focusing on how to use patient survey data to improve patient centred care. Participants: Eight team leaders (medical, clinical improvement or service quality directors) and six team members (clinical improvement coordinators and managers). Results: Respondents reported three types of barriers before the collaborative: organisational, professional and data related. Organisational barriers included lack of supporting values for patient centred care, competing priorities, and lack of an effective quality improvement infrastructure. Professional barriers included clinicians and staff not being used to focusing on patient interaction as a quality issue, individuals not necessarily having been selected, trained or supported to provide patient centred care, and scepticism, defensiveness or resistance to change following feedback. Data related barriers included lack of expertise with survey data, lack of timely and specific results, uncertainty over the effective interventions or time frames for improvement, and consequent risk of perceived low cost effectiveness of data collection. Factors that appeared to have promoted data use included board led strategies to change culture and create quality improvement forums, leadership from senior physicians and managers, and the persistence of quality improvement staff over several years in demonstrating change in other areas. Conclusion: Using patient survey data may require a more concerted effort than for other clinical data. Organisations may need to develop cultures that support patient centred care, quality improvement capacity, and to align professional receptiveness and leadership with technical expertise with the data.

Objective To explore barriers to early presentation and diagnosis with breast cancer among black women. Design Systematic review. Methods We searched multiple bibliographic databases (January 1991–February 2013) for primary research, published in English, conducted in developed countries and investigating barriers to early presentation and diagnosis with symptomatic breast cancer among black women (≥18 years). Studies were excluded if they did not report separate findings by ethnic group or gender, only reported differences in time to presentation/diagnosis, or reported on interventions and barriers to cancer screening. We followed Cochrane and PRISMA guidance to identify relevant research. Findings were integrated through thematic synthesis. Designs of quantitative studies made meta-analysis impossible. Results We identified 18 studies (6183 participants). Delay was multifactorial, individual and complex. Factors contributing to delay included: poor symptom and risk factor knowledge; fear of detecting breast abnormality; fear of cancer treatments; fear of partner abandonment; embarrassment disclosing symptoms to healthcare professionals; taboo and stigmatism. Presentation appears quicker following disclosure. Influence of fatalism and religiosity on delay is unclear from evidence in these studies. We compared older studies (≥10 years) with newer ones (<10 years) to determine changes over time. In older studies, delaying factors included: inaccessibility of healthcare services; competing priorities and concerns about partner abandonment. Partner abandonment was studied in older studies but not in newer ones. Comparisons of healthy women and cancer populations revealed differences between how people perceive they would behave, and actually behave, on finding breast abnormality. Conclusions Strategies to improve early presentation and diagnosis with breast cancer among black women need to address symptom recognition and interpretation of risk, as well as fears of the consequences of cancer. The review is limited by the paucity of studies conducted outside the USA and limited detail reported by published studies preventing comparison between ethnic groups.

Background: Patients’ experiences have become central to assessing the performance of healthcare systems worldwide and are increasingly being used to inform quality improvement processes. This paper explores the relative value of surveys and detailed patient narratives in identifying priorities for improving breast cancer services as part of a quality improvement process. Methods: One dataset was collected using a narrative interview approach, (n = 13) and the other using a postal survey (n = 82). Datasets were analyzed separately and then compared to determine whether similar priorities for improving patient experiences were identified. Results: There were both similarities and differences in the improvement priorities arising from each approach. Day surgery was specifically identified as a priority in the narrative dataset but included in the survey recommendations only as part of a broader priority around improving inpatient experience. Both datasets identified appointment systems, patients spending enough time with staff, information about treatment and side effects and more information at the end of treatment as priorities. The specific priorities identified by the narrative interviews commonly related to ‘relational’ aspects of patient experience. Those identified by the survey typically related to more ‘functional’ aspects and were not always sufficiently detailed to identify specific improvement actions. Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that whilst local survey data may act as a screening tool to identify potential problems within the breast cancer service, they do not always provide sufficient detail of what to do to improve that service. These findings may have wider applicability in other services. We recommend using an initial preliminary survey, with better use of survey open comments, followed by an in-depth qualitative analysis to help deliver improvements to relational and functional aspects of patient experience.

Objectives  To evaluate the use of a modified Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) survey to support quality improvement in a collaborative focused on patient‐centred care, assess subsequent changes in patient experiences, and identify factors that promoted or impeded data use.Background  Healthcare systems are increasingly using surveys to assess patients’ experiences of care but little is established about how to use these data in quality improvement.Design  Process evaluation of a quality improvement collaborative.Setting and participants  The CAHPS team from Harvard Medical School and the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement organized a learning collaborative including eight medical groups in Minnesota.Intervention  Samples of patients recently visiting each group completed a modified CAHPS® survey before, after and continuously over a 12‐month project. Teams were encouraged to set goals for improvement using baseline data and supported as they made interventions with bi‐monthly collaborative meetings, an online tool reporting the monthly data, a resource manual called The CAHPS® Improvement Guide, and conference calls.Main outcome measures  Changes in patient experiences. Interviews with team leaders assessed the usefulness of the collaborative resources, lessons and barriers to using data.Results  Seven teams set goals and six made interventions. Small improvements in patient experience were observed in some groups, but in others changes were mixed and not consistently related to the team actions. Two successful groups appeared to have strong quality improvement structures and had focussed on relatively simple interventions. Team leaders reported that frequent survey reports were a powerful stimulus to improvement, but that they needed more time and support to engage staff and clinicians in changing their behaviour.Conclusions  Small measurable improvements in patient experience may be achieved over short projects. Sustaining more substantial change is likely to require organizational strategies, engaged leadership, cultural change, regular measurement and performance feedback and experience of interpreting and using survey data.

Objectives To assess the stage at cancer diagnosis and survival after cancer diagnosis among people served by secondary mental health services, compared with other local people. Setting Using the anonymised linkage between a regional monopoly secondary mental health service provider in southeast London of four London boroughs, Croydon, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark, and a population-based cancer register, a historical cohort study was constructed. Participants A total of 28 477 cancer cases aged 15+ years with stage of cancer recorded at diagnosis were identified. Among these, 2206 participants had been previously assessed or treated in secondary mental healthcare before their cancer diagnosis and 125 for severe mental illness (schizophrenia, schizoaffective or bipolar disorders). Primary and secondary outcome measures Stage when cancer was diagnosed and all-cause mortality after cancer diagnosis among cancer cases registered in the geographical area of southeast London. Results Comparisons between people with and without specific psychiatric diagnosis in the same residence area for risks of advanced stage of cancer at diagnosis and general survival after cancer diagnosed were analysed using logistic and Cox models. No associations were found between specific mental disorder diagnoses and beyond local spread of cancer at presentation. However, people with severe mental disorders, depression, dementia and substance use disorders had significantly worse survival after cancer diagnosis, independent of cancer stage at diagnosis and other potential confounders. Conclusions Previous findings of associations between mental disorders and cancer mortality are more likely to be accounted for by differences in survival after cancer diagnosis rather than by delayed diagnosis.