Survey results of lung cancer screening patient experiences and satisfaction

ABSTRACT

Background: In 2014, Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC) in Tampa, Florida launched a lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals meeting USPSTF inclusion criteria. To reveal successes and potential limitations of this program, we conducted a survey to measure lung cancer screening patient experiences and satisfaction. Methods: In August 2020, a survey was mailed to 576 patients who completed one or more lung cancer screenings at MCC. The survey collected demographics and smoking history and measured patient satisfaction and experiences in 6 domains the appointment process, clinical staff interactions, communication, visit with the provider, screening results and cost, and the clinic facility/overall satisfaction. There were also questions on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. A 5-point Likert scale was used to measure satisfaction with clinical staff and clinic facility/overall satisfaction (1= excellent to 5= poor) and other domains (1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree). Results were quantified using descriptive statistics. Results: Among the 160 patients that completed the survey, 96.3% were White, 93.1% were non-Hispanic, 46.9% were female, 78.1% were former smokers, and the mean age was 69 years. For the appointment process, 91.2% "strongly agreed/agreed" it was easy to make an appointment and 92.5% "strongly agreed/agreed" the clinic check-in process was efficient. Next, nearly 93% reported the courtesy of the clinical staff was "excellent/very good". For communication, while 90% "strongly agreed/agreed" that the lung cancer screening process was clearly explained, 63.2% "strongly agreed/agreed" that the potential harms and limitations were clearly explained and 71.2% "strongly agreed/agreed" that the process for follow-up screening was clearly explained. For the provider questions, 71.3% "strongly agreed/agreed" that the provider was willing to listen carefully and 66.3% "strongly agreed/agreed" that the instructions regarding follow-up were easy to understand. For results and costs, 79.4% "strongly agreed/agreed" the screening results were clearly explained and 70% "strongly agreed/agreed" that the cost of the screening was justified. Regarding overall satisfaction, 87.6% "strongly agreed/agreed" they would recommend lung cancer screening at MCC. Finally, 10.6% of patients were concerned about getting a lung cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic and only 8.1% reported that the COVID-19 pandemic prevented them from getting a lung cancer screening. Conclusion: Generally, for all 6 domains, patients reported favorable satisfaction and experience with lung cancer screening at MCC. However, higher rates of "neither agree/disagree" and "prefer not to answer" were observed for items related to communication and visit with the provider items suggesting improvements may be warranted, particularly related to future visits.