RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Intermediate care (IC) services are a key component of integrated care for elderly people, providing a link between hospital and home through provision of rehabilitation and health and social care. The Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are designed to measure user experience of care in IC settings. OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility and the scaling properties of the Italian version of PREMs questionnaires for use in IC services. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted on consecutive users of 1 home-based and 4 bed-based IC services in Emilia-Romagna (Italy). The main outcome measure was the PREMs questionnaire results. PREMs for each home- and bed-based IC services were translated, back-translated, and adapted through consensus among the members of the advisory board and pilot testing of face validity in 15 patients. A total of 199 questionnaires were returned from users of bed-based services and 185 were returned by mail from users of home-based services. The return rates and responses were examined. Mokken analysis was used to examine the scaling properties of the PREMs. RESULTS: Analysis performed on the bed-based PREMs (N=154) revealed that 13 items measured the same construct and formed a moderate-strength scale (Loevinger H=0.488) with good reliability (Cronbach's alpha =0.843). Analysis of home-based PREMs (N=134 records) revealed that 15 items constituted a strong scale (Loevinger H=0.543) with good reliability (Cronbach's alpha =0.875). CONCLUSION: The Italian versions of the bed- and home-based IC-PREMs questionnaires proved to be valid and reliable tools to assess patients' experience of care. Future plans include monitoring user experience over time in the same facilities and in other Italian IC settings for between-service benchmarking.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Surgery has become an important tool for cancer treatment, requiring many available resources and a good organization of the surgery service. The aim of this study was to provide robust data for policymakers on the impact of hospital volume on survival, taking into account different sources of information. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study in a cohort of patients with gastric cancer submitted to partial or total gastrectomy. Data for the analysis were retrieved from regional administrative databases, the regional death registry, and histological reports. The main outcome measures were operative mortality and long-term survival. The associations between hospital volume and risk of mortality were calculated using a Cox multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: The estimated relationship between operative mortality and volume was not statistically significant. Conversely, high-volume hospitals had an increased likelihood of long-term survival compared to low-volume institutions: hazard ratio 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.94, p = 0.01). The percentage variation between crude and adjusted HRs using only administrative data or administrative and histological data was very small. However, the combined use of administrative and clinical data provided a more accurate model for estimating risk-adjusted mortality. CONCLUSIONS: A positive association between hospital volume and survival was evident for long-term outcome after adjusting for patient and tumor confounding. Moreover, the patient's choice of hospital was not guided by specific care pathways or screening programs, and prognosis was not poorer for patients in high-volume hospitals. These findings suggest that there is leeway for improving access to surgery for gastric cancer patients.
