Yolanda D Tseng1, Monica S Krishnan2, Joshua A Jones3, Adam J Sullivan4, Daniel Gorman5, Allison Taylor5, Michael Pacold5, Barbara Kalinowski5, Harvey J Mamon5, Janet Abrahm6, Tracy A Balboni7. 1. Harvard Radiation Oncology Program, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: mkrishnan@lroc.harvard.edu. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology has recommended tailoring palliative cancer care (PCC) to the distinct and complex needs of advanced cancer patients. The Supportive and Palliative Radiation Oncology (SPRO) service was initiated July 2011 to provide dedicated palliative radiation oncology (RO) care to cancer patients. We used care providers' ratings to assess SPRO's impact on the quality of PCC and compared perceptions of PCC delivery among physicians practicing with and without a dedicated palliative RO service. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An online survey was sent to 117 RO care providers working at 4 Boston-area academic centers. Physicians and nurses at the SPRO-affiliated center rated the impact of the SPRO service on 8 PCC quality measures (7-point scale, "very unfavorably" to "very favorably"). Physicians at all sites rated their department's performance on 10 measures of PCC (7-point scale, "very poorly" to "very well"). RESULTS: Among 102 RO care providers who responded (response rate, 89% for physicians; 83% for nurses), large majorities believed that SPRO improved the following PCC quality measures: overall quality of care (physician/nurse, 98%/92%); communication with patients and families (95%/96%); staff experience (93%/84%); time spent on technical aspects of PCC (eg, reviewing imaging) (88%/56%); appropriateness of treatment recommendations (85%/84%); appropriateness of dose/fractionation (78%/60%); and patient follow-up (64%/68%). Compared with physicians practicing in departments without a dedicated palliative RO service, physicians at the SPRO-affiliated department rated the overall quality of their department's PCC more highly (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians indicated that SPRO improved the quality of PCC. Physicians practicing within this dedicated service rated their department's overall PCC quality higher than physicians practicing at academic centers without a dedicated service. These findings point to dedicated palliative RO services as a promising means of improving PCC quality.
PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology has recommended tailoring palliative cancer care (PCC) to the distinct and complex needs of advanced cancerpatients. The Supportive and Palliative Radiation Oncology (SPRO) service was initiated July 2011 to provide dedicated palliative radiation oncology (RO) care to cancerpatients. We used care providers' ratings to assess SPRO's impact on the quality of PCC and compared perceptions of PCC delivery among physicians practicing with and without a dedicated palliative RO service. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An online survey was sent to 117 RO care providers working at 4 Boston-area academic centers. Physicians and nurses at the SPRO-affiliated center rated the impact of the SPRO service on 8 PCC quality measures (7-point scale, "very unfavorably" to "very favorably"). Physicians at all sites rated their department's performance on 10 measures of PCC (7-point scale, "very poorly" to "very well"). RESULTS: Among 102 RO care providers who responded (response rate, 89% for physicians; 83% for nurses), large majorities believed that SPRO improved the following PCC quality measures: overall quality of care (physician/nurse, 98%/92%); communication with patients and families (95%/96%); staff experience (93%/84%); time spent on technical aspects of PCC (eg, reviewing imaging) (88%/56%); appropriateness of treatment recommendations (85%/84%); appropriateness of dose/fractionation (78%/60%); and patient follow-up (64%/68%). Compared with physicians practicing in departments without a dedicated palliative RO service, physicians at the SPRO-affiliated department rated the overall quality of their department's PCC more highly (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians indicated that SPRO improved the quality of PCC. Physicians practicing within this dedicated service rated their department's overall PCC quality higher than physicians practicing at academic centers without a dedicated service. These findings point to dedicated palliative RO services as a promising means of improving PCC quality.
Authors: E Chow; R Wong; M Vachon; R Connolly; L Andersson; E Szumacher; E Franssen; C Danjoux Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: B Ashleigh Guadagnolo; Kai-Ping Liao; Linda Elting; Sharon Giordano; Thomas A Buchholz; Ya-Chen Tina Shih Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Thomas J Smith; Paul R Helft; David J Debono; Scott R Berry; Dana S Wollins; Daniel M Hayes; Jamie H Von Roenn; Lowell E Schnipper Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Yolanda D Tseng; Monica S Krishnan; Adam J Sullivan; Joshua A Jones; Edward Chow; Tracy A Balboni Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A Fairchild; E Pituskin; B Rose; S Ghosh; J Dutka; A Driga; P Tachynski; J Borschneck; L Gagnon; S Macdonnell; J Middleton; K Thavone; S Carstairs; D Brent; D Severin Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sanders Chang; Peter May; Nathan E Goldstein; Juan Wisnivesky; Kenneth Rosenzweig; R Sean Morrison; Kavita V Dharmarajan Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Neha Vapiwala; Charles R Thomas; Surbhi Grover; Mei Ling Yap; Timur Mitin; Lawrence N Shulman; Mary K Gospodarowicz; John Longo; Daniel G Petereit; Ronald D Ennis; James A Hayman; Danielle Rodin; Jeffrey C Buchsbaum; Bhadrasain Vikram; May Abdel-Wahab; Alan H Epstein; Paul Okunieff; Joel Goldwein; Patrick Kupelian; Joanne B Weidhaas; Margaret A Tucker; John D Boice; Clifton David Fuller; Reid F Thompson; Andrew D Trister; Silvia C Formenti; Mary-Helen Barcellos-Hoff; Joshua Jones; Kavita V Dharmarajan; Anthony L Zietman; C Norman Coleman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jordan Hill; Mohannad Alhumaid; Sunita Ghosh; Alexander Le; Sharon M Watanabe; Alysa Fairchild Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-07-22 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Lucas Gomes Sapienza; Matthew Stephen Ning; Anuja Jhingran; Lilie L Lin; Caio Raposo Leão; Bruna Bueno da Silva; Antônio Cássio de Assis Pellizzon; Maria José Leite Gomes; Glauco Baiocchi Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-11-22