RESEARCH PAPER
Evaluation of the hospital environment for women with endometrial cancer
 
More details
Hide details
1
Institute of Obstetrics and Emergency Medicine, University of Rzeszow, Poland
2
Clinical Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rzeszow State Hospital, Rzeszow, Poland
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Joanna Skręt- Magierło   

Institute of Obstetrics and Emergency Medicine, University of Rzeszow, Poland
 
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2016;23(3):511–516
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction and objectives:
The aim of the study was describe the factors determining the evaluation of the hospital environment, especially satisfaction with care and individual needs of cancer patients.

Material and Methods:
The study comprised 80 women with endometrial cancer diagnosed and treated surgery in the Clinic of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in Rzeszow, Poland, between 2011–2012. The study used 3 questionnaires: the Goals Attainment Scaling (GAS) questionnaires, and questionnaires developed by the EORTC Quality of Life group, i.e. the QLQ C-30 (general module) and the In- PATSAT-32.

Results:
Respondents indicated 36 goals/expectations and the most common (over 50%) concerned the normal course of the post-operative period. The overall index of all goals which were met was 7.0 points. General quality of life reported by respondents before surgery was at a medium level (52.3+16.8%). Emotional functioning received the lowest scores (61.0+18.8%). Most respondents assessed manual skills of hospital doctors and nurses as the best in the In-PATSAT 32 scale i.e. 69.9±14.7% and 67.3±16.1%, respectively. The worst ratings concerned access to hospital from the outside (50.8±16.9%) and easy orientation inside the buildings (55.9±16.0%).

Conclusions:
Analysis of correlations between GAS and the In-PATSAT32 scales proved that they cannot be used interchangeably since they measure different aspects of a patient’s satisfaction with hospital care. For this reason, the application of idiographic and nomothetic tests among cancer patients is helpful for evaluation of the hospital environment.

 
REFERENCES (26)
1.
Conroy T, Mercier M, Bonneterree J, Luporsi E, Lefebvre JL, Lapeyre M, Puyraveau M, Schraub S. French version of FACT-G: Validation and comparison with other cancer- specific instruments. Eur J Cancer. 2004; 40: 2243–2252.
 
2.
Velikova G, Coens C, Efficace F, Greimel E, Groenvold M, Johson C, Singer S, van de Poll- Franse L, Young T, Bottomley A, et al. Health- related Quality of Life in EORTC clinical trials 30 years of progress from methodological developments to making a real impact on oncology practice. Eur J Cancer. Supl. 2012; 1: 141–149.
 
3.
Mpinga EK, Chastonay P. Satisfaction of patients: A right to health indicator? Health Policy. 2011; 100(2–3): 144–150.
 
4.
Defossez G, Mathoulin- Pelis S, Ingrand I, Gasquet I, Sifer- Riviere L, Ingrand P, et al. Satisfaction with care among patient with non-metastatic cancer: development and first steps validation of the REPERS 60 Questionnaire. BMC Cancer. 2007; 7: 129.
 
5.
Wong SW, Fielding R, Wong C, Hedley A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Sample Invariance of the Chinese Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (ChPSQ-9) among Patients with Breast and Lung Cancer. Value In Health. 2009; 12(4): 597–605.
 
6.
Tastan S, Hatipoglu S, Lyigun E, Kilic S. Implemenatation of a clinical pathway in breast cancer patients undergoing breast surgery. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2012; 16(4): 368–74.
 
7.
Harley C, Adams J, Booth L, Selby P, Brown J, Velikova G. Patient Experiences of Continuity of Cancer Care: Development of a New Medical Care Questionnaire (MCQ) for Oncology Outpatients. Value In Health. 2009; 12(8): 1180–1186.
 
8.
Brédart A, Coens C, Aaronson N, Chie WC, Efficace F , Conroy T, Blazeby JM, Hammerlid E, Costantini M, Joly F, Schraub S, Sezer O, Arraras JI, Rodary C, Costantini A, Mehlitz M, Razavi D, Bottomley A. EORTC Quality of Life Group and EORTC Quality of Life Unit. Determinants of patient satisfaction in oncology settings from European and Asian countries: preliminary results based on the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire. Eur J Cancer. 2007; 43(2): 323–330.
 
9.
Van den Bosch T, Coosemans A, Morina M, Timmerman D, Amant F. Screening for uterine tumors. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2012; 26(2): 257–66.
 
10.
Schoenfelder T, Klewer J, Kugler J. Factors Associated with Patient Satisfaction in Surgery: The Role of Patient’s Perceptions of Received Care, Visit Characteristics, and Demographic Variables. J Surg Res. 2012; 164(1): 53–59.
 
11.
Schlosser RW. Goal attainment scaling as a clinical measurement technique in communication disorders: a critical review. J Commun Disord. 2004; 37: 217–39.
 
12.
Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. A longitudinal study of patient and surgeon goal achievement 2 years after surgery following pelvic floor dysfunction surgery. BJOG. 2010; 117: 1504–1511.
 
13.
Reis N, Beji NK. Risk factors for endometrial cancer in Turkish women: Results from a hospital-based-case-control study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2009; 13: 122–127.
 
14.
Romundstad P, Janszky I, Vatten L, Hakon Bjorngard J, Langhammer A, Manczuk M, et al. Cancer risk factors in Poland: the PONS Study. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2011; 18: 251–254.
 
15.
Linkboy F, Maxwell GL, Felix AS, Lin Y, Lenzer D, Bovbjerg DH, Lokshin A, Hennon M, Jakcic JM, Goodpaster BH, Delany JP. Longitudinal evaluation of cancer- associated biomarkers before and after weight loss in RENEW study participants: Implications for cancer risk reduction. Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 125(1): 114–9.
 
16.
El-Sahwi KS, Schwartz PE, Santin AD. Development of targeted therapy in uterine serous carcinoma, a biologically aggressive variant of endometrial cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2012; 12(1): 41–49.
 
17.
Berstein LM, Boyarkina MP, Teslenko SY. Familial diabetes is associated with reduced risk of cancer in diabetic patients: a possible role for metformin. Med Oncol. 2012; 29(2): 1308–13.
 
18.
Bovbjerg EV, Trowbridge ER, Barber Martirosian TE, Steers WD, Hullfish KL. Patient-centered treatment goals for pelvic floor disorders: association with quality-of-life and patient satisfaction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 568: 1–6.
 
19.
Mahajan ST, Elkadry EA, Kenton KS, Shott S, Brubaker L. Patient-centred surgical outcomes: The impact of goal achievement and urge incontinence on patient satisfaction one year after surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194: 722–728.
 
20.
Adams SR, Dramitinos P, Shapiro A, Dodge L, Elkadry E. Do patient goals vary with stage of prolapse? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 205(5)502:1–6.
 
21.
Chan YM, Ngan HYS, Li BYG, Yip AMW, Lee PW, Yip PSF, Wong LC. A Longitudinal Study on Quality of Life after Gynecologic Cancer Treatment. Gynecol Oncol. 2001; 83: 10–19.
 
22.
Hjörleifsdóttir E, Hallberg IR, Gunnarsdőttir ED. Satisfaction with care in oncology outpatient clinics: psychometric characteristics of the Icelandic EORTC IN-PATSAT 32 version. J Clin Nurs. 2010; 19(13–14): 1784–1794.
 
23.
Arrora V, Philips S, Natress K, Pather S, Dalrymple C, Atkinson K, Smirnova S, Cotterell S, Carter J. Patient satisfaction with inpatient care provided by the Sydney Gynecological Oncology Group. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2010; 1: 179–184.
 
24.
Arraras JI, Vera R, Martinez M, Hernadez B, Lainez N, Rico M, Vila M, Chicata V, Asin G. The EORTC cancer in-patient satisfaction with care questionnaire: EORTC IN-PATSAT32 Validation study for Spanish patients. Clin Trans Oncol. 2009; 11(4): 237–242.
 
25.
Jayasekara H, Rajapaksa L, Brédard A. Psychometric evaluation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer in- patient satisfaction with care questionnaire (‘Sinhala’ version) for use in a South- Asian setting. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008; 20(3): 221–226.
 
26.
Balderas-Peña LM, Sat-Muñoz D, Contreras-Hernández I, Solano-Murillo P, Hernández-Chávez GA, Mariscal-Ramírez I, Lomelí-García M, Díaz-Cortés MA, Mould-Quevedo JF, Castro-Cervantes JM, Garcés-Ruiz OM, Morgan-Villela G. Evaluation of patient satisfaction with the quality of health care received within the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 trial by patients with breast and colorectal cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma at different stages. Correlation with socio-demographic characteristics, co-morbidities and other procedural variables at the Mexican Institute of Social Security. Value Health. 2011; 14: 96–99.
 
eISSN:1898-2263
ISSN:1232-1966