A184: Acute Oncology Service (AOS) Patient Experience Feedback Project

Sarah Cox1,Helen Neville-Webbe2,1

1Southport and Ormskirk Hospital, Merseyside, UK,2Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Merseyside, UK

Presenting date: Monday 2 November
Presenting time: 13.10-14.00

Background

 

An AOS should be provided by any hospital with an emergency department (ED), and is subject to Cancer Peer Review (1). Clatterbridge Cancer Centre (CCC) in conjunction with Merseyside and Cheshire Cancer Network set up a network-wide AOS across all acute trusts. We have shown an AOS leads to better quality of care for acutely ill cancer patients, and reduces hospital length of stay LOS) (2). Peer Review also stipulates patient feedback should be sought. This has initially been trialled at Southport and Ormskirk Trust.

Method

 

A patient questionnaire was designed at network level by the AO cancer nurse specialists (CNS), eliciting patients' views on the quality of communication and information by the AOS. The questionnaire was passed for approval in the local trust. 50 questionnaires were handed out consecutively to inpatients. Patients had the option of filling it out and handing in before discharge or completing at home and returning with it to their next clinic appointment. All responses were annonymous

Results

 

Of 50 questionnaires released, 29 were returned (58%) and assessed. The LOS ranged from 1 to 38 days, (median 3.5). Patients were admitted via the GP (32%), via ED (32%), on advice from CCC nurse triage (29%) and direct from outpatients (7%). Patients were asked the reason for their admission: 39% said they had cancer symptoms, 21% said chemotherapy or radiotherapy side-effects, and 39% were unsure why they were admitted.

Patients were questioned regarding their first AO consultation.

 86% felt it was useful.  76% felt they were given all the information they wanted and 79% understood all the information. 83% knew the name of their CNS and 76% knew how to contact their CNS. Only 51% felt they had been given a clear forward plan for discharge though 69% felt they had a clear plan for their hospital treatment. Only 31% say they were offered psychological support  or financial advice, during their stay, though 65% felt this would have been of benefit to them

Conclusion

 

Overall patients find the AOS useful in providing information about their condition, do understand the information given, know their keyworker and how to contact them. The AOS needs to improve on identifying patients who may benefit from greater psychological input or advice around financial entitlement, whilst the local trust needs to improve on providing patients with a clear discharge plan. The latter is provided by the admitting team rather than the AOS.