BACKGROUND: Cancer Care Ontario promotes the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) for standardized systematic screening and assessment of symptoms across cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Attitudes of medical oncologists (MOs), radiation oncologists (ROs), and general practitioners in oncology (GPOs) toward palliative care, and the ESAS were surveyed in Ottawa. METHODS: A four-part questionnaire was developed, drawing on items from similar studies. RESULTS: Forty respondents (17 MOs, 16 ROs, and 7 GPOs) were interviewed. Attitudes to palliative care: regarding coordination of care across the illness trajectory including end of life by MOs, all ROs disagreed while 71.4 % of GPOs and 41.2 % of MOs agreed that this was the MO's role. Most respondents supported palliative care alongside concurrent anti-tumor therapies (82.4 % MOs, 62.5 % ROs, and 100 % GPOs). Attitudes to ESAS: respondents agreed that the ESAS enhances care and assessment of symptom severity. ROs felt that reviewing the ESAS histogram was less useful than did MOs (42.9 versus 76.5 %, respectively); 56.3 % of ROs and 88.2 % of MOs agreed that the ESAS is useful for follow-up (p < 0.08); 64.7 % of MOs, 88.3 % of GPOs, and 6.3 % of ROs agreed with ESAS completion at every visit (p < 0.00). Frequency of use of the ESAS: 62.5 % of respondents reported inspecting the ESAS "most of the time or always," while 17.5 % reported "never" or "rarely." CONCLUSIONS: MOs and GPOs appear more positive than ROs toward regular use of ESAS. There is discordance between what is perceived to be a useful beneficial instrument versus actual use of the instrument in daily practice. The reasons for this gap need to be better understood in future studies.
BACKGROUND:Cancer Care Ontario promotes the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) for standardized systematic screening and assessment of symptoms across cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Attitudes of medical oncologists (MOs), radiation oncologists (ROs), and general practitioners in oncology (GPOs) toward palliative care, and the ESAS were surveyed in Ottawa. METHODS: A four-part questionnaire was developed, drawing on items from similar studies. RESULTS: Forty respondents (17 MOs, 16 ROs, and 7 GPOs) were interviewed. Attitudes to palliative care: regarding coordination of care across the illness trajectory including end of life by MOs, all ROs disagreed while 71.4 % of GPOs and 41.2 % of MOs agreed that this was the MO's role. Most respondents supported palliative care alongside concurrent anti-tumor therapies (82.4 % MOs, 62.5 % ROs, and 100 % GPOs). Attitudes to ESAS: respondents agreed that the ESAS enhances care and assessment of symptom severity. ROs felt that reviewing the ESAS histogram was less useful than did MOs (42.9 versus 76.5 %, respectively); 56.3 % of ROs and 88.2 % of MOs agreed that the ESAS is useful for follow-up (p < 0.08); 64.7 % of MOs, 88.3 % of GPOs, and 6.3 % of ROs agreed with ESAS completion at every visit (p < 0.00). Frequency of use of the ESAS: 62.5 % of respondents reported inspecting the ESAS "most of the time or always," while 17.5 % reported "never" or "rarely." CONCLUSIONS: MOs and GPOs appear more positive than ROs toward regular use of ESAS. There is discordance between what is perceived to be a useful beneficial instrument versus actual use of the instrument in daily practice. The reasons for this gap need to be better understood in future studies.
Authors: G Brandon Gunn; Tito R Mendoza; Clifton D Fuller; Ibrahima Gning; Steven J Frank; Beth M Beadle; Ehab Y Hanna; Charles Lu; Charles S Cleeland; David I Rosenthal Journal: Head Neck Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Cornelia M Ruland; Harald H Holte; Jo Røislien; Cathy Heaven; Glenys A Hamilton; Jørn Kristiansen; Heidi Sandbaek; Stein O Kvaløy; Line Hasund; Misoo C Ellison Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; Robert M Kaplan; Judith K Ockene; Edwin B Fisher; Karen M Emmons Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Thomas J Smith; Sarah Temin; Erin R Alesi; Amy P Abernethy; Tracy A Balboni; Ethan M Basch; Betty R Ferrell; Matt Loscalzo; Diane E Meier; Judith A Paice; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Mark Somerfield; Ellen Stovall; Jamie H Von Roenn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J C Kuo; D M Graham; A Salvarrey; F Kassam; L W Le; F A Shepherd; R Burkes; P J Hollen; R J Gralla; N B Leighl Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Cinzia Brunelli; Emanuela Zito; Sara Alfieri; Claudia Borreani; Anna Roli; Augusto Caraceni; Giovanni Apolone Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Valeria Sanna; Palma Fedele; Giulia Deiana; Maria G Alicicco; Chiara Ninniri; Anna N Santoro; Antonio Pazzola; Alessandro Fancellu Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2022-07-24