A Qualitative Assessment of Patient Satisfaction with Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer at a Single Institution: How Can We Improve?

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate patient satisfaction (with emphasis on preoperative education) with radical cystectomy for bladder cancer at our institution, the University of Missouri Hospital, qualitatively in order to identify specific areas where improvements can be made.

Materials and Methods

We developed a patient survey that used open-ended questions to identify positive and negative experiences that contributed to patient satisfaction. We administered the survey to radical cystectomy patients who met inclusion criteria and agreed to participate. We recorded, transcribed and qualitatively coded the responses. We identified four themes under which both positive and negative responses were placed, and constructed two diagrams to better illustrate contributors to patient experience and satisfaction.

Results

We identified 25 patients who met inclusion criteria. Of those, 13 participated in the survey. Regarding overall experience, 92.3% of patients rated their care as excellent or good. Regarding preoperative education, 76.9% of patients reported they definitely or somewhat received enough information on what to expect after surgery, and 76.9% definitely received enough guidance on how to care for themselves after surgery. From qualitative coding of patient responses to open-ended questions, we identified preoperative preparation, delivery of care, caregiver availability, and patient-centered care as themes that contributed positively and negatively to patient experience.

Conclusion

Although the overall patient satisfaction could be perceived as high (92.3%), qualitative analysis revealed several areas where improvements can be made to improve patient experience with radical cystectomy at our institution. As previously expected, preoperative preparation was a contributor.

Keywords:

• cystectomy
• patient satisfaction
• patient education
• bladder cancer

Disclosure

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.