Janina Fels1, Steffi Pigorsch2, Hilke Vorwerk3, Rita Engenhart-Cabillic3, Birgitt van Oorschot4. 1. Department of Geriatrics, Clinic of Vitanas, Berlin, Germany. J.Fels@vitanas.de. 2. Department of RadioOncology, Technical University, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Philipps-University, Marburg, Germany. 4. Interdisciplinary centre for palliative medicine and Department of Radiation Oncology, Julius-Maximilians-University, Würzburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Little is known about the attitudes of radiation oncologists towards palliative care, about their competences in this field, and about the collaboration with palliative care specialists. Our aim was to close this gap and understand more about the importance of an additional qualification in palliative care. METHODS: Medical members of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) were electronically surveyed during November-December 2016. RESULTS: The survey was emailed successfully to 1110 addressees, whereas a total of 205 questionnaires were eligible for analysis (response rate 18.4%). 55 (26.8%) of the respondents had an additional qualification in palliative care. Physicians who had an additional qualification in palliative care (PC qualification) reported palliative care needs for their patients more frequently than the other respondents (89.0 vs. 82.7%, p = 0.008). Furthermore, they were most likely to report a high confidence in palliative care competences, such as "communication skills & support for relatives" (83.6 vs. 59.3%, p = 0.013), "symptom control," and "pain management" (94.5 vs. 67.7%, p < 0.001 and 90.9 vs. 73.3%, p = 0.008, respectively). Respondents with a PC qualification more often involved palliative care specialists than the other respondents (63.3 vs. 39.3%, p = 0.007). Perceived main barriers regarding palliative care in radiation oncology included time aspects (9.2%), stigmata (8.5%), and the lack of interdisciplinary collaboration (8.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that aspects of palliative care strongly impact on daily practice in radiation oncology. Additional qualifications and comprehensive training in palliative medicine may contribute to improved patient care in radiation oncology.
PURPOSE: Little is known about the attitudes of radiation oncologists towards palliative care, about their competences in this field, and about the collaboration with palliative care specialists. Our aim was to close this gap and understand more about the importance of an additional qualification in palliative care. METHODS: Medical members of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) were electronically surveyed during November-December 2016. RESULTS: The survey was emailed successfully to 1110 addressees, whereas a total of 205 questionnaires were eligible for analysis (response rate 18.4%). 55 (26.8%) of the respondents had an additional qualification in palliative care. Physicians who had an additional qualification in palliative care (PC qualification) reported palliative care needs for their patients more frequently than the other respondents (89.0 vs. 82.7%, p = 0.008). Furthermore, they were most likely to report a high confidence in palliative care competences, such as "communication skills & support for relatives" (83.6 vs. 59.3%, p = 0.013), "symptom control," and "pain management" (94.5 vs. 67.7%, p < 0.001 and 90.9 vs. 73.3%, p = 0.008, respectively). Respondents with a PC qualification more often involved palliative care specialists than the other respondents (63.3 vs. 39.3%, p = 0.007). Perceived main barriers regarding palliative care in radiation oncology included time aspects (9.2%), stigmata (8.5%), and the lack of interdisciplinary collaboration (8.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that aspects of palliative care strongly impact on daily practice in radiation oncology. Additional qualifications and comprehensive training in palliative medicine may contribute to improved patient care in radiation oncology.
Entities:
Keywords:
Additional qualification; Barriers to palliative care; End of life; Radiation therapy; Survey
Authors: Felix Momm; Gerhild Becker; Hermann Ewald; Johann Baumgartner; Irenäus A Adamietz; Hermann Frommhold Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Robert Semrau; Katja Hansemann; Markus Adam; Nicolaus Andratschke; Thomas Brunner; Frank Heinzelmann; Guido Hildebrandt; Dirk Vordermark; Daniel Zips Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jennifer S Temel; Joseph A Greer; Alona Muzikansky; Emily R Gallagher; Sonal Admane; Vicki A Jackson; Constance M Dahlin; Craig D Blinderman; Juliet Jacobsen; William F Pirl; J Andrew Billings; Thomas J Lynch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-08-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anthony L Back; Robert M Arnold; Walter F Baile; Kelly A Fryer-Edwards; Stewart C Alexander; Gwyn E Barley; Ted A Gooley; James A Tulsky Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-03-12
Authors: R Sean Morrison; Jessica Dietrich; Susan Ladwig; Timothy Quill; Joseph Sacco; John Tangeman; Diane E Meier Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Michael Oertel; Renate Schmidt; David Rene Steike; Hans Theodor Eich; Philipp Lenz Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Sharlette Dunn; Madelene A Earp; Patricia Biondo; Winson Y Cheung; Marc Kerba; Patricia A Tang; Aynharan Sinnarajah; Sharon M Watanabe; Jessica E Simon Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Hans Christiansen; Maximilian Niyazi; Marcel Büttner; Nils Cordes; Tobias Gauer; Daniel Habermehl; Gunther Klautke; Oliver Micke; Matthias Mäurer; Jan Sokoll; Esther Gera Cornelia Troost Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Pirus Ghadjar; Wiebke Stritter; Irina von Mackensen; Felix Mehrhof; Clara Foucré; Vincent H Ehrhardt; Marcus Beck; Pimrapat Gebert; Goda Kalinauskaite; Jacqueline S Luchte; Carmen Stromberger; Volker Budach; Angelika Eggert; Georg Seifert Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 3.481