Patient-reported quality of supportive care among patients with colorectal cancer in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

PURPOSE: High-quality supportive care is an essential component of comprehensive cancer care. We implemented a patient-centered quality of cancer care survey to examine and identify predictors of quality of supportive care for bowel problems, pain, fatigue, depression, and other symptoms among 1,109 patients with colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with new diagnosis of colorectal cancer at any Veterans Health Administration medical center nationwide in 2008 were ascertained through the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry and sent questionnaires assessing a variety of aspects of patient-centered cancer care. We received questionnaires from 63% of eligible patients (N = 1,109). Descriptive analyses characterizing patient experiences with supportive care and binary logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of receipt of help wanted for each of the five symptom categories. RESULTS: There were significant gaps in patient-centered quality of supportive care, beginning with symptom assessment. In multivariable modeling, the impact of clinical factors and patient race on odds of receiving wanted help varied by symptom. Coordination of care quality predicted receipt of wanted help for all symptoms, independent of patient demographic or clinical characteristics. CONCLUSION: This study revealed substantial gaps in patient-centered quality of care, difficult to characterize through quality measurement relying on medical record review alone. It established the feasibility of collecting patient-reported quality measures. Improving quality measurement of supportive care and implementing patient-reported outcomes in quality-measurement systems are high priorities for improving the processes and outcomes of care for patients with cancer.

The interrelationships between and contributions of background, cognitive, and environmental factors to colorectal cancer screening adherence.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the interrelationships between and contributions of background, cognitive, and environmental factors to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence. METHODS: In this study, 2,416 average risk patients aged 50-75 from 24 Veterans Affairs medical facilities responded to a mailed survey with phone follow-up (response rate 81%). Survey data (attitudes, behaviors, demographics) were linked to facility (organizational complexity) and medical records data (diagnoses, screening history). Patients with a fecal occult blood test within 15 months, sigmoidoscopy or barium enema within 5.5 years, or colonoscopy within 11 years of the survey were considered adherent. Logistic regressions estimated the association between adherence and background, cognitive, and environmental factors. Deviance ratios examined interrelationships between factors. Population attributable risks (PAR) were used to identify intervention targets. RESULTS: The association of background factors with adherence was partially explained by cognitive and environmental factors. The association of environmental factors with adherence was partially explained by cognitive factors. Cognitive and environmental factors contributed equally to adherence. Factors with the highest PARs for non-adherence were age 50-64, less than two comorbidities, and lack of physician recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to increase physician screening recommendations for younger, healthy patients at facilities with the lowest screening rates may improve CRC adherence in this setting.

Validation of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behavior from a mixed-mode survey of veterans.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to validate self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using the National Cancer Institute Colorectal Cancer Screening questionnaire. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 890 patients, ages 50 to 75 years, from the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center were surveyed by mail. Phone administration was attempted with mail nonresponders. VA and non-VA records were combined for the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, concordance, and report-to-records ratio (R2R) were estimated for overall and test-specific CRC adherence among respondents providing complete medical records. Secondary analyses examined variation in estimates by patient characteristics, treatment of missing and uncertain responses, and whether a strict or liberal time interval was used for assessing concordance. RESULTS: Complete medical records were available for 345 of the 686 survey responders. For overall adherence, sensitivity was 0.98, specificity was 0.59, concordance was 0.88, and R2R was 1.14. Sensitivity was 0.82 for fecal occult blood test (FOBT), 0.75 for sigmoidoscopy, 0.97 for colonoscopy, and 0.63 for double-contrast barium enema (DCBE). Specificity was 0.89 for FOBT, 0.76 for sigmoidoscopy, 0.72 for colonoscopy, and 0.85 for DCBE. Concordance was >0.80 for all tests other than sigmoidoscopy (0.76). R2R was 1.31 for FOBT, 1.33 for sigmoidoscopy, 1.42 for colonoscopy, and 6.13 for DCBE. The R2R was lower for a combined sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy measure. Overreporting was more pronounced for older, less-educated individuals with no family history of CRC. Sensitivity and R2R improved using a liberal interval and treating uncertain responses as nonadherent (versus missing), but differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported CRC screening validity is generally acceptable and robust across definitional decisions, but varies by screening test and patient characteristics.