OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe a large-scale, Belgian implementation project about geriatric assessment (=GA) in daily oncology practice and to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing GA in this setting. Design / setting / participants: The principal investigator of every participating hospital (n=22) was invited to complete a newly developed questionnaire with closed- and open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions surveyed how GA was implemented. The open-ended questions identified barriers and facilitators for the implementation of GA in daily oncology practice. Descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis were performed as appropriate. RESULTS: Qualifying criteria (e.g. disease status and cancer type) for GA varied substantially between hospitals. Thirteen hospitals (59.1%) succeeded to screen more than half of eligible patients. Most hospitals reported that GA data and follow-up data had been collected in almost all screened patients. Implementing geriatric recommendations and formulating new geriatric recommendations at the time of follow-up are important opportunities for improvement. The majority of identified barriers were organizational, with high workload, lack of time or financial/staffing problems as most cited. The most cited facilitators were all related to collaboration. CONCLUSION: Interventions to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer need to address a wide range of factors, with organization and collaboration as key elements. All stakeholders, seeking to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer, should consider and address the identified barriers and facilitators.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe a large-scale, Belgian implementation project about geriatric assessment (=GA) in daily oncology practice and to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing GA in this setting. Design / setting / participants: The principal investigator of every participating hospital (n=22) was invited to complete a newly developed questionnaire with closed- and open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions surveyed how GA was implemented. The open-ended questions identified barriers and facilitators for the implementation of GA in daily oncology practice. Descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis were performed as appropriate. RESULTS: Qualifying criteria (e.g. disease status and cancer type) for GA varied substantially between hospitals. Thirteen hospitals (59.1%) succeeded to screen more than half of eligible patients. Most hospitals reported that GA data and follow-up data had been collected in almost all screened patients. Implementing geriatric recommendations and formulating new geriatric recommendations at the time of follow-up are important opportunities for improvement. The majority of identified barriers were organizational, with high workload, lack of time or financial/staffing problems as most cited. The most cited facilitators were all related to collaboration. CONCLUSION: Interventions to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer need to address a wide range of factors, with organization and collaboration as key elements. All stakeholders, seeking to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer, should consider and address the identified barriers and facilitators.
Authors: J M Jonker; C H Smorenburg; A H Schiphorst; B van Rixtel; J E A Portielje; M E Hamaker Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2014-04-06 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Lore Decoster; Cindy Kenis; Katrien Van Puyvelde; Johan Flamaing; Godelieve Conings; Jacques De Grève; Tony Mets; Koen Milisen; Jean Pierre Lobelle; Hans Wildiers Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: A G Pallis; C Fortpied; U Wedding; M C Van Nes; B Penninckx; A Ring; D Lacombe; S Monfardini; P Scalliet; H Wildiers Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-03-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Hans Wildiers; Pieter Heeren; Martine Puts; Eva Topinkova; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Martine Extermann; Claire Falandry; Andrew Artz; Etienne Brain; Giuseppe Colloca; Johan Flamaing; Theodora Karnakis; Cindy Kenis; Riccardo A Audisio; Supriya Mohile; Lazzaro Repetto; Barbara Van Leeuwen; Koen Milisen; Arti Hurria Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Clark DuMontier; Mina S Sedrak; Wee Kheng Soo; Cindy Kenis; Grant R Williams; Kristen Haase; Magnus Harneshaug; Hira Mian; Kah Poh Loh; Siri Rostoft; William Dale; Harvey Jay Cohen Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: M-E Rougé Bugat; M Bourgouin; S Gérard; S Lozano; D Brechemier; P Cestac; C Cool; L Balardy Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: William Dale; Grant R Williams; Amy R MacKenzie; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis; Ronald J Maggiore; Janette K Merrill; Sweatha Katta; Kimberly T Smith; Heidi D Klepin Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-10-15
Authors: R Gironés; I Morilla; C Guillen-Ponce; M D Torregrosa; I Paredero; E Bustamante; S Del Barco; G Soler; B Losada; L Visa; E Llabrés; B Fox; J L Firvida; R Blanco; M Antonio; F Aparisi; M Pi-Figueras; E Gonzalez-Flores; M J Molina-Garrido; J Saldaña Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Carlijn G N Voorend; Noeleen C Berkhout-Byrne; Yvette Meuleman; Simon P Mooijaart; Willem Jan W Bos; Marjolijn van Buren Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 2.388