Inter-specialty variation of the Press Ganey Outpatient Medical Practice Survey

The Impact of a Narrative Medicine Life Story Pilot Program on Press Ganey™ Scores in an Outpatient Cancer Center

Oncology patients face challenges beyond those directly affecting their cancer management. Guided personal narrative programs have been shown to help patients with chronic conditions and life-framing events. Few such narrative programs have been reported for cancer patients or analyzed for their impact on patient experience. We established our Life Story Narrative Program, modeled on the United States Veterans Affairs' "My Life, My Story" for outpatient oncology patients in our hospital's cancer center. Press Ganey™ patient experience scores from program participants were compared retrospectively with scores from patients who were not participants. Over an eight-month period, we invited 30 cancer center outpatients to participate. Twenty-seven individuals accepted, and 18 had their stories edited, approved, and scanned into their electronic health record. Cohort matching yielded a control arm consisting of 255 responses from 48 surveys, while the intervention arm consisted of 68 responses from 12 surveys. 78.4% of responses from the control arm were rated 5 compared with 100% in the intervention arm. The mean Press Ganey™ score response in the control arm was 4.71 compared with 5.00 from the intervention arm. Wilcoxon U value was 10,540 with p < .001. An outpatient narrative medicine program for cancer patients to tell their life stories can easily be organized. Patients were willing to participate, enrollment was brisk, and the use of resources was limited. Although our sample size was small, participation in our Life Story Narrative Pilot Program resulted in a statistically significant improvement in Press Ganey™ scores.

Patient Experience Performance at a Primary Cancer Center Versus Affiliated Community Facilities

Purpose

Patient experience tools are used throughout health care to evaluate physician and departmental performance. In radiation medicine, these tools are important in evaluating patient-specific metrics throughout their care journey. This study compared patient experience outcomes from a central tertiary cancer program with network clinics in a health care network.

Methods and Materials

Radiation medicine patient experience surveys (Press Ganey, LLC) were collected from a central facility and 5 network locations from January 2017 through June 2021. Surveys were distributed to patients after treatment completion. The study cohort was divided into the central facility and satellites. Questions were converted to a 0 to 100 scale from the Likert scale (1-5). To compare scores between site types, 2-way analysis of variance tests for the significance of sites adjusted for years of operations and adjustments for multiple comparisons (Dunnett's test) were completed on each question.

Results

The number of consecutively returned surveys analyzed was 3777; a response rate of 33.3% was observed. The central site conducted 117,583 linear accelerator, 1425 Gamma Knife, 273 stereotactic radiosurgery, and 830 stereotactic body radiation therapy procedures. All satellites combined conducted 76,788 linear accelerator, 131 Gamma Knife, 95 stereotactic radiosurgery, and 355 stereotactic body radiation therapy procedures. The central facility fared better than the satellites on "Convenience of parking" (95.9 vs 87.9; P = .0001) but worse in other domains of care.

Conclusions

All sites yielded exemplary patient experience rates. Community clinics scored higher than the main campus. The higher scores at the network sites require a deeper analysis of factors influencing the central facility, as the survey did not account for varying patient volumes and disparities in care complexity across sites. Attributes to satellites include lower patient volumes and easily navigable layouts. These results counter the impression that increased resources at the main campus create a better patient experience relative to network clinics and suggest that high-volume tertiary facilities will require unique initiatives to improve the patient experience.