Perceptions of Quality of Patient-Centered Nursing Care among Women with Breast Cancer

Jiyoung Kang; Eunyoung E Suh

doi:10.16952/pns.2015.12.2.115

Journal List > Perspect Nurs Sci > v.12(2) > 1060402

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kang and Suh: Perceptions of Quality of Patient-Centered Nursing Care among Women with Breast Cancer

Original Article

Perspectives in Nursing Science 2015;12(2):115-123.

Published online: 19 October 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16952/pns.2015.12.2.115

Perceptions of Quality of Patient-Centered Nursing Care among Women with Breast Cancer

Jiyoung Kang¹, Eunyoung E Suh^2,

¹Graduate Student, College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul

²Prefessor, College of Nursing · Research Institute of Nursing Science, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Suh, Eunyoung E College of Nursing·Research Institute of Nursing Science, Seoul National University, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongro-gu, Seoul 03080, Korea. Tel: +82-2-740-8484, Fax: +82-2-740-8484, E-mail: esuh@snu.ac.kr

Received 21 September 2015 Revised 6 October 2015 Accepted 6 October 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose:

This study aimed to investigate the quality of patient-centered nursing care (PCNC) among women with breast cancer at a cancer center in Seoul, Korea. Methods: In a cross-sectional survey design, 223 women with breast cancer were recruited from the oncology surgery unit. The Korean version of the oncology patients’ perceptions of the quality of nursing care scale, which is conceptualized in four sub-dimensions (individualization, proficiency, responsiveness, and coordination) was used for measurement. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and ANOVA. Results: The participants were all women, with a mean age of 51.3 years. The mean score of PCNC was high and significantly different from each other according to age group. Breast cancer women, who had mastectomy, were satisfied highly in terms of proficiency and responsiveness care, but less satisfied with individualization and coordination care than those of other women. Conclusion: The findings of this study show the quality of cancer nursing care, especially focusing on patient-centeredness, can be measured from the patients’perspective. The individualized and coordinated nursing care is considered to be the core of quality cancer care implying patient-centeredness. Based on the findings of this study, more research is necessary to explore the patients’ view of quality cancer care and to test the effects of PCNC within the context of comparative effectiveness.

Keywords: Patient-centered care, Quality of nursing care, Breast cancer, Oncology nursing, Patients‘, perceptions

REFERENCES

1.Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: National Acad-emy Press;2001.

2.Bokhour BG., Pugh MJ., Rao JK., Avetisyan R., Berlowitz DR., Kazis LE. Improving methods for measuring quality of care: a patient-centered approach in chronic disease. Med Care Res Rev. 2009. 66(2):147–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077558708327174.

3.Kitson A., Marshall A., Bassett K., Zeitz K. What are the core elements of patient-centred care? a narrative review and synthesis of the literature from health policy, medicine and nursing. J Adv Nurs. 2013. 69(1):4–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06064.x.

4.Koberich S., Farin E. A systematic review of instruments measuring patients' perceptions of patient-centred nursing care. Nurs Inq. 2015. 22(2):106–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nin.12078.

5.Lusk JM., Fater K. A concept analysis of patient-centered care. Nurs Forum. 2013. 48(2):89–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12019.

6.Radwin LE., Farquhar SL., Knowles MN., Virchick BG. Cancer patients' descriptions of their nursing care. J Adv Nurs. 2005. 50(2):162–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03375.x.

7.Radwin LE., Cabral HJ., Wilkes G. Relationships between patient-centered cancer nursing interventions and desired health outcomes in the context of the health care system. Res Nur Health. 2009. 32(1):4–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nur.20302.

8.Kvale K., Bondevik M. What is important for patient centred care? a qualitative study about the perceptions of patients with cancer. Scand J Caring Sci. 2008. 22(4):582–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00579.x.

9.Marshall A., Kitson A., Zeitz K. Patients' views of patientcen-tred care: a phenomenological case study in one surgical unit. J Adv Nurs. 2012. 68(12):2664–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.05965.x.

10.Radwin L., Alster K., Rubin KM. Development and testing of the oncology patients' perceptions of the quality of nursing care scale. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2003. 30(2):283–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1188/03.onf.283-290.

11.Sidani S., Collins L., Harbman P., MacMillan K., Reeves S., Hurlock-Chorostecki C, et al. Development of a measure to assess healthcare providers' implementation of patient-centered care. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2014. 11(4):248–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12047.

12.National Cancer Institute. Patient-centered communication in cancer care: promoting healing and reducing suffering. Bethesda: NIH Publication;2007.

13.King A., Hoppe RB. “Best practice” for patient-centered communication: a narrative review. J Grad Med Educ. 2013. 5(3):385–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-13-00072.1.

14.The Korea Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center. Annual report of cancer statistics in Korea in 2012. Seoul: Ministry of Health and Welfare;2014.

15.Kim Z., Min SY., Yoon CS., Jung KW., Ko BS., Kang E, et al. The basic facts of Korean breast cancer in 2012: results from a nationwide survey and breast cancer registry database. J Breast Cancer. 2015. 18(2):103–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2015.18.2.103.

16.Korean Breast Cancer Society. Breast cancer facts & figures 2014. Seoul: Korean Breast Cancer Society;2014.

17.Ahn TS. A study of educational information need of mastectomy patients undergoing treatments [dissertation]. Seoul: Seoul National University;2002.

18.Yi MS., Lee EO., Park YS., Choe KJ., Noh DY. A descriptive study on educational and counseling needs of breast cancer patients based on the treatment stages. Asian Oncol Nurs. 2003. 3(1):5–14.

19.Mallinger JB., Griggs JJ., Shields CG. Patient-centered care and breast cancer survivors'satisfaction with information. Patient Educ Couns. 2005. 57(3):342–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.09.009.

20.Radwin L. Oncology patients' perceptions of quality nursing care. Res Nur Health. 2000. 23(3):179–90.

21.Can G., Akin S., Aydiner A., Ozdilli K., Durna Z. Evaluation of the effect of care given by nursing students on oncology patients' satisfaction. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2008. 12(4):387–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2008.02.004.

22.Suhonen R., Schmidt LA., Radwin L. Measuring individualized nursing care: assessment of reliability and validity of three scales. J Adv Nurs. 2007. 59(1):77–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04282.x.

23.Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G∗Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009. 41(4):1149–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149.

24.Larson PJ., Ferketich SL. Patients' satisfaction with nurses' caring during hospitalization. West J Nurs Res. 1993. 15(6):690–703.

25.Mitchell PH., Heinrich J., Moritz P., Hinshaw AS. Measurement into practice: summary and recommendations. Medical Care. 1997. 35(11):NS124–NS7.

Table 1.

Individualization, Proficiency, Responsiveness, and Coordination by the General Characteristics of the Participants (N=223)

Characteristics	Categories	n(%)	Individualization		Proficiency		Responsiveness		Coordination
Characteristics	Categories	n(%)	M±SD	F (p)	M±SD	F (p)	M±SD	F (p)	M±SD	F (p)
Age (year) Range: 25~75 M±SD: 51.3±9.9	20~29	3 (1.3)	5.43±0.73	3.19^∗	5.47±0.76	1.91	5.48±0.58	1.08	3.33±2.03	1.81
	30~39	18 (8.1)	5.34±0.68	(.014)	5.58±0.41	(.110)	5.40±0.85	(.369)	3.83±1.48	(.128)
	40~49^a	77 (34.5)	5.35±0.71	a＞b	5.72±0.39		5.62±0.53		4.28±1.47
	50~59^b	78 (35.1)	4.94±0.89		5.52±0.49		5.45±0.63		3.91±1.51
	≥60	47 (21.0)	5.31±0.74		5.64±0.52		5.59±0.57		4.51±1.39
Marital status	Single	9 (4.0)	5.25±0.91	0.93	5.60±0.38	0.49	5.22±1.06	1.02	4.22±1.35	0.27
	Married	192 (86.1)	5.22±0.78	(.427)	5.63±0.46	(.687)	5.56±0.57	(.386)	4.18±1.50	(.846)
	Divorced	10 (4.5)	4.80±1.13		5.45±0.56		5.44±0.61		3.77±1.47
	Others	12 (5.4)	5.12±0.79		5.61±0.47		5.46±0.72		4.03±1.45
Children	0	33 (14.8)	5.18±0.77	0.21	5.62±0.49	0.45	5.43±0.80	1.30	4.26±1.37	0.40
	1	47 (21.1)	5.13±0.75	(.890)	5.56±0.49	(.718)	5.43±0.63	(.276)	4.13±1.46	(.753)
	2	112 (50.2)	5.24±0.80		5.65±0.42		5.60±0.52		4.07±1.50
	≥3	31 (13.9)	5.18±0.92		5.62±0.56		5.56±0.64		4.37±1.63
Religion	Christian	75 (33.6)	5.21±0.77	0.04	5.61±0.45	0.88	5.55±0.54	0.11	4.07±1.50	0.24
	Catholic	40 (17.9)	5.17±0.90	(.989)	5.53±0.63	(.451)	5.50±0.68	(.953)	4.10±1.41	(.867)
	Buddhist	44 (19.8)	5.18±0.85		5.64±0.45		5.50±0.74		4.30±1.48
	Other (none include)	64 (28.7)	5.21±0.74		5.68±0.36		5.55±0.53		4.18±1.54
Education	≤Middle school	51 (22.9)	5.28±0.74	0.50	5.62±0.50	0.08	5.58±0.56	0.21	4.52±1.38	2.44
	High school	82 (36.8)	5.14±0.82	(.610)	5.61±0.45	(.923)	5.51±0.62	(.811)	4.15±1.41	(.089)
	≥College	90 (40.3)	5.21±0.82		5.64±0.46		5.53±0.62		3.94±1.58
Perceived economic status	Good	9 (4.0)	5.30±0.73	1.66	5.62±0.55	0.94	5.68±0.52	0.85	4.11±1.70	0.35
	Fair	165 (74.0)	5.18±0.82	(.175)	5.60±0.48	(.421)	5.51±0.64	(.467)	4.18±1.46	(.790)
	Poor	20 (9.0)	4.94±0.87		5.62±0.41		5.46±0.51		3.83±1.57
	Non response	29 (13.0)	5.44±0.58		5.76±0.34		5.67±0.51		4.23±1.54

^∗ p＜.05;

^a, b =Scheffé test.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for the Quality of Patient-centered Nursing Care (N=223)

Variables	Item score
Variables	Possible range	Reported range	M±SD
Quality of PCNC	1~6	1~6	5.29±0.65
Individualization	1~6	2~6	5.20±0.80
Proficiency	1~6	4~6	5.62±0.46
Responsiveness	1~6	3~6	5.53±0.61
Coordination	1~6	1~6	4.15±1.49

PCNC=Patient-centered nursing care.

Table 3.

Scores and Ranks of the Quality of Patient-centered Nursing Care (N=223)

Sub scale	Items	Min	Max	M±SD	Rank
Sub scale	The nurses	Min	Max	M±SD	Rank
I	1. personalized my care to my particular needs.	2	6	5.26±0.99	25
	2. knew how to help me when things were bothering me.	2	6	5.31±1.03	21
	3. knew how I was coping.	1	6	5.14±1.05	29
	4. knew how I was feeling.	1	6	4.98±1.07	33
	5. made it easy to establish the relationship I wanted with them.	1	6	5.07±1.12	32
	6. encouraged me to actively participate in my care.	1	6	5.22±1.12	27
	7. helped me get the information I wanted.	1	6	5.38±0.95	19
	8. gave me support I needed.	2	6	5.52±0.75	13
	9. did what they could to make me comfortable.	1	6	5.48±0.85	16
	10. spent time with me when I needed them.	1	6	4.70±1.43	36
	11. discussed care options with me.	1	6	4.76±1.44	35
	12. knew what I had been through.	1	6	5.14±1.09	30
	13. correctly anticipated problems I might have because of my conditions.	2	6	5.13±1.06	31
	14. tried to help when I was having a difficult time.	1	6	5.21±1.12	28
	15. knew how to help me in ways that I liked.	2	6	5.35±0.86	20
	16. arranged for the same nurses to care for me regularly.	1	6	5.38±0.95	18
	17. comforted me when I needed it.	2	6	5.29±0.94	23
	18. remembered things about me.	1	6	5.26±1.00	26
P	19. knew how to care for someone with my condition.	3	6	5.62±0.61	10
	20. were skillful.	3	6	5.73±0.55	2
	21. gave me accurate explanations about my care.	3	6	5.70±0.57	5
	22. knew what they were doing.	3	6	5.74±0.55	1
	23. checked on me often enough.	3	6	5.48±0.73	15
	24. took time to answer my questions.	3	6	5.71±0.55	4
	25. knew how to help me.	4	6	5.67±0.54	7
	26. knew made sure I had what I needed.	2	6	5.39±0.79	17
	27. addressed my needs promptly.	3	6	5.61±0.67	11
	28. respected my dignity.	2	6	5.57±0.66	12
R	29. were kind to me.	3	6	5.73±0.56	3
	30. were gentle with me.	3	6	5.68±0.60	6
	31. made me feel like I mattered.	1	6	5.27±1.04	24
	32. came when I needed them.	2	6	5.62±0.67	9
	33. reacted quickly when something important happened.	3	6	5.64±0.66	8
	34. took my concerns seriously.	1	6	5.30±1.04	22
	35. paid attention to what I said.	3	6	5.51±0.77	14
C	36. told me which nurse was taking over when they were not there.	1	6	3.84±1.92	37
	37. told me which nurse was primarily responsible for coordinating my care.	1	6	3.78±1.94	38
	38. showed me they cared about my family and friends.	1	6	4.83±1.37	34
	∗In general, How would you describe the quality of the nursing care you received?	8	10	9.56±0.60

I=Individualization 18 items; P=Proficiency 10 items; R=Responsiveness 7 items; C=Coordination 3 items

TOOLS

Similar articles