- Email: [email protected]
Survey about the quality perceived of the patient care in a radiation oncology department. Results from 2002 to 2011
S288
reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy 1 8 ( 2 0 1 3 ) S282–S288
Survey about the quality perceived of the patient care in a radiation oncology department. Results from 2002 to 2011 E. Guimón Olaizola, M. Eguiguren Bastida, M. Esnaola Arrizabalaga, A. Querejeta Ayerra, I. Uranga Aizpurua, G. Rodriguez Moreno, S. Caffiero Ballesteros, I. Diaz de Cerio Martínez, J. Minguez Manrique, J. Urraca de La Serna, C. Blanco Garcia, C. Santos Juan Pablo Hospital Universitario Donostia, Oncología Radioterápica, Spain Objective. The objective of the study is to present the results about the quality perceived by the patient in our service and look for areas to improve. Methods. From January 2002 to December 2011, we performed semiannually an standardized survey about the quality perceived based on a system ISO 9001. We collected the following aspects of the radiotherapy treatment: get an appointment, first consultation, simulation, verification and starting treatment, information provided, waiting time, accessibility and comfort and overall assessment. Each item is assessed as very good (MB), regular (R), bad (M), do not know/no answer (NS/NC). Semiannually, selected 60 patients undergoing radical intent radiotherapy, anonymously and voluntarily answered the survey. Results. 1140 surveys were distributed, 774 were answered and analyzed. The average of the semiannually answered and analyzed surveys was 43 (72%). The overall assessment MB-B was 99%. One of the best valued aspects was the physician treatment, valued as MB-B in a 97.75%. One of the worst valued aspect was the waiting time, wich was more than 15 minutes for the consulting in 47%, for simulation in 42%, and for daily treatment in 56%. Only the 54.6% of the patients treated with delay did know about it. You can see the other results on the poster. Conclusion. These results has allowed us to analyze the quality perceived by our patients and to look for areas to improve. We can see that they are satisfied with the overall assessment but we have to improve on the waiting time and on the information about the delays. Our results are within the average of the literature. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2013.03.363
reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy 1 8 ( 2 0 1 3 ) S282–S288
Survey about the quality perceived of the patient care in a radiation oncology department. Results from 2002 to 2011 E. Guimón Olaizola, M. Eguiguren Bastida, M. Esnaola Arrizabalaga, A. Querejeta Ayerra, I. Uranga Aizpurua, G. Rodriguez Moreno, S. Caffiero Ballesteros, I. Diaz de Cerio Martínez, J. Minguez Manrique, J. Urraca de La Serna, C. Blanco Garcia, C. Santos Juan Pablo Hospital Universitario Donostia, Oncología Radioterápica, Spain Objective. The objective of the study is to present the results about the quality perceived by the patient in our service and look for areas to improve. Methods. From January 2002 to December 2011, we performed semiannually an standardized survey about the quality perceived based on a system ISO 9001. We collected the following aspects of the radiotherapy treatment: get an appointment, first consultation, simulation, verification and starting treatment, information provided, waiting time, accessibility and comfort and overall assessment. Each item is assessed as very good (MB), regular (R), bad (M), do not know/no answer (NS/NC). Semiannually, selected 60 patients undergoing radical intent radiotherapy, anonymously and voluntarily answered the survey. Results. 1140 surveys were distributed, 774 were answered and analyzed. The average of the semiannually answered and analyzed surveys was 43 (72%). The overall assessment MB-B was 99%. One of the best valued aspects was the physician treatment, valued as MB-B in a 97.75%. One of the worst valued aspect was the waiting time, wich was more than 15 minutes for the consulting in 47%, for simulation in 42%, and for daily treatment in 56%. Only the 54.6% of the patients treated with delay did know about it. You can see the other results on the poster. Conclusion. These results has allowed us to analyze the quality perceived by our patients and to look for areas to improve. We can see that they are satisfied with the overall assessment but we have to improve on the waiting time and on the information about the delays. Our results are within the average of the literature. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2013.03.363