Daniel Hong1, Lauren C Das2, Ellen Daily3, Stacie K Levine4, Olwen M Hahn5, Stanley L Liauw6, Daniel W Golden6, Christina H Son7. 1. College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. Beacon Health System, Elkhart, IN, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Section of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Section of Hematology-Oncology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, The University of Chicago, 5758 S. Maryland Ave MC 9006, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. 7. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, The University of Chicago, 5758 S. Maryland Ave MC 9006, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. cson@radonc.uchicago.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Goals of care discussions (GOCD) are essential when counseling patients with cancer. Respective roles of radiation oncologists (RO) and medical oncologists (MO) in GOCD can be unclear. This study aims to clarify the dynamics and barriers to GOCD. METHODS: Five hundred and fifty-four ROs and 1604 MOs at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers were sent an anonymous electronic survey regarding demographics, opinions, training in GOCD, GOCD frequency, and three vignettes. Response formats were Yes/No, Likert-type, and free response. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed. Likert-type scores were reported as median [interquartile range]. RESULTS: There were 76 (13.7%) RO and 153 (9.5%) MO who completed surveys. Sixty-three percent of RO and 66% of MO reported GOCD with > 50% of patients (p = 0.90). GOCD were initiated for declining performance status (74%) and poor life expectancy (69%). More MO (42%) received formal GOCD training compared to RO (18%) (p < 0.01). MO were more comfortable conducting GOCD than RO (p < 0.01). RO-conducted GOCD were rated to be less important by MO compared to RO (p < 0.05). Thirty-six percent of MO reported being "not at all" or "somewhat" comfortable with RO-conducted GOCD. RO-initiated GOCD with new patients were rated less appropriate by RO compared to MO perceptions of RO-initiated GOCD (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While MO and RO conduct GOCD with similar frequency, MO are more comfortable conducting GOCD and are more likely to have formal training. MO rate importance of RO involvement lower than RO. Further research is needed to understand interdisciplinary dynamics that may impact GOCD and subsequent patient care outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Goals of care discussions (GOCD) are essential when counseling patients with cancer. Respective roles of radiation oncologists (RO) and medical oncologists (MO) in GOCD can be unclear. This study aims to clarify the dynamics and barriers to GOCD. METHODS: Five hundred and fifty-four ROs and 1604 MOs at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers were sent an anonymous electronic survey regarding demographics, opinions, training in GOCD, GOCD frequency, and three vignettes. Response formats were Yes/No, Likert-type, and free response. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed. Likert-type scores were reported as median [interquartile range]. RESULTS: There were 76 (13.7%) RO and 153 (9.5%) MO who completed surveys. Sixty-three percent of RO and 66% of MO reported GOCD with > 50% of patients (p = 0.90). GOCD were initiated for declining performance status (74%) and poor life expectancy (69%). More MO (42%) received formal GOCD training compared to RO (18%) (p < 0.01). MO were more comfortable conducting GOCD than RO (p < 0.01). RO-conducted GOCD were rated to be less important by MO compared to RO (p < 0.05). Thirty-six percent of MO reported being "not at all" or "somewhat" comfortable with RO-conducted GOCD. RO-initiated GOCD with new patients were rated less appropriate by RO compared to MO perceptions of RO-initiated GOCD (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While MO and RO conduct GOCD with similar frequency, MO are more comfortable conducting GOCD and are more likely to have formal training. MO rate importance of RO involvement lower than RO. Further research is needed to understand interdisciplinary dynamics that may impact GOCD and subsequent patient care outcomes.
Authors: Laura C Hanson; Frances Collichio; Stephen A Bernard; William A Wood; Matt Milowsky; Erin Burgess; Crista J Creedle; Summer Cheek; Lydia Chang; Bhisham Chera; Alexandra Fox; Feng-Chang Lin Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 2.947
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: Katharine Secunda; M Jeanne Wirpsa; Kathy J Neely; Eytan Szmuilowicz; Gordon J Wood; Ellen Panozzo; Joan McGrath; Anne Levenson; Jonna Peterson; Elisa J Gordon; Jacqueline M Kruser Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Camilla Zimmermann; Nadia Swami; Monika Krzyzanowska; Breffni Hannon; Natasha Leighl; Amit Oza; Malcolm Moore; Anne Rydall; Gary Rodin; Ian Tannock; Allan Donner; Christopher Lo Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jennifer W Mack; Angel Cronin; Nancy L Keating; Nathan Taback; Haiden A Huskamp; Jennifer L Malin; Craig C Earle; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alexi A Wright; Baohui Zhang; Alaka Ray; Jennifer W Mack; Elizabeth Trice; Tracy Balboni; Susan L Mitchell; Vicki A Jackson; Susan D Block; Paul K Maciejewski; Holly G Prigerson Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 56.272