BACKGROUND: Early palliative/supportive care (PSC) consultation and advance care planning (ACP) improve outcomes for patients with incurable cancer. However, PSC is underutilized in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To examine philosophical differences among PSC, radiation oncology (RO), and medical oncology (MO) physicians in order to understand barriers to early PSC referral. DESIGN: An electronic survey collected views of a nationwide cohort of health-care professionals regarding ACP and end-of-life care. Setting/Participants/Measurements: A subgroup analysis compared the responses from all 51 PSC, 178 RO, and 81 MO physician participants (12% response rate), using Pearson χ2 and Mann-Whitney U tests for categorical and ordinal data, respectively. RESULTS: More statistically significant differences were observed between RO-PSC (12 questions) and MO-PSC (12 questions) than RO-MO (4 questions). Both RO and MO were more likely than PSC physicians to believe doctors adequately care for emotional ( P < .001) and physical ( P < .001) needs of patients with an incurable illness. Both RO and MO were also less likely to believe that PSC physicians were helpful at addressing these needs ( P = .002 and <.001, respectively) or that patients' awareness of their life expectancy leads to better medical ( P = .007 and .002, respectively) and personal ( P = .001 for each) decisions. Palliative/supportive care physicians felt that doctors are generally less successful at explaining/clarifying advanced life-sustaining treatments than RO ( P < .001) or MO ( P = .004). MO favored later initiation of ACP than either RO ( P = .006) or PSC physicians ( P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in perception of appropriate end-of-life care exist between oncologists and PSC physicians, suggesting a need for improved education and communication between these groups.
BACKGROUND: Early palliative/supportive care (PSC) consultation and advance care planning (ACP) improve outcomes for patients with incurable cancer. However, PSC is underutilized in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To examine philosophical differences among PSC, radiation oncology (RO), and medical oncology (MO) physicians in order to understand barriers to early PSC referral. DESIGN: An electronic survey collected views of a nationwide cohort of health-care professionals regarding ACP and end-of-life care. Setting/Participants/Measurements: A subgroup analysis compared the responses from all 51 PSC, 178 RO, and 81 MO physician participants (12% response rate), using Pearson χ2 and Mann-Whitney U tests for categorical and ordinal data, respectively. RESULTS: More statistically significant differences were observed between RO-PSC (12 questions) and MO-PSC (12 questions) than RO-MO (4 questions). Both RO and MO were more likely than PSC physicians to believe doctors adequately care for emotional ( P < .001) and physical ( P < .001) needs of patients with an incurable illness. Both RO and MO were also less likely to believe that PSC physicians were helpful at addressing these needs ( P = .002 and <.001, respectively) or that patients' awareness of their life expectancy leads to better medical ( P = .007 and .002, respectively) and personal ( P = .001 for each) decisions. Palliative/supportive care physicians felt that doctors are generally less successful at explaining/clarifying advanced life-sustaining treatments than RO ( P < .001) or MO ( P = .004). MO favored later initiation of ACP than either RO ( P = .006) or PSC physicians ( P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in perception of appropriate end-of-life care exist between oncologists and PSC physicians, suggesting a need for improved education and communication between these groups.
Entities:
Keywords:
advance care planning; cancer; end-of-life care; medical oncology; palliative care; radiation oncology
Authors: Krista Noonan; King Mong Tong; Janessa Laskin; Barbara Melosky; Sophie Sun; Nevin Murray; Cheryl Ho Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2014-10-02 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: E H Bradley; A G Hallemeier; T R Fried; R Johnson-Hurzeler; E J Cherlin; S V Kasl; S M Horwitz Journal: Am J Med Date: 2001-08-15 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Joan M Teno; Pedro L Gozalo; Julie P W Bynum; Natalie E Leland; Susan C Miller; Nancy E Morden; Thomas Scupp; David C Goodman; Vincent Mor Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jonathan Wong; Beibei Xu; Heidi N Yeung; Eric J Roeland; Maria Elena Martinez; Quynh-Thu Le; Loren K Mell; James D Murphy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Bella S Ehrlich; Narine Movsisyan; Tsetsegsaikhan Batmunkh; Ella Kumirova; Marina V Borisevich; Kirill Kirgizov; Dylan E Graetz; Michael J McNeil; Taisiya Yakimkova; Anna Vinitsky; Gia Ferrara; Chen Li; Zhaohua Lu; Erica C Kaye; Justin N Baker; Asya Agulnik Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Matthias Unseld; Gloria M Gager; Feroniki Adamidis; Anna Kitta; Sophie Roider-Schur; Herbert H Watzke; Eva Katharina Masel Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 2.328