Cargando…

Assessment methods and services for older people with cancer in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND: National cancer strategy calls for comprehensive assessments for older people but current practice across the United Kingdom is not well described. AIM: To identify current assessment methods and access to relevant supporting services for older people with cancer. METHODS: A web-based su...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kalsi, Tania, Harari, Danielle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7103526/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32257846
http://dx.doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v11.i3.152
_version_ 1783512069963776000
author Kalsi, Tania
Harari, Danielle
author_facet Kalsi, Tania
Harari, Danielle
author_sort Kalsi, Tania
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: National cancer strategy calls for comprehensive assessments for older people but current practice across the United Kingdom is not well described. AIM: To identify current assessment methods and access to relevant supporting services for older people with cancer. METHODS: A web-based survey (SurveyMonkey) targeting health professionals (oncologists, cancer surgeons, geriatricians, nurses and allied health professionals) was distributed January-April 2016 via United Kingdom nationally recognised professional societies. Responses were analysed in frequencies and percentages. Chi Square was used to compare differences in responses between different groups. RESULTS: 640 health care professionals responded. Only 14.1% often/always involved geriatricians and 52.0% often/always involved general practitioners in assessments. When wider assessments were used, they always/often influenced decision-making (40.5%) or at least sometimes (34.1%). But 30.5%-44.3% did not use structured assessment methods. Most clinicians favoured clinical history taking. Few used scoring tools and few wished to use them in the future. Most had urgent access to palliative care but only a minority had urgent access to other key supporting professionals (e.g. geriatricians, social workers, psychiatry). 69.6% were interested in developing Geriatric Oncology services with geriatricians. CONCLUSION: There is variability in assessment methods for older people with cancer across the United Kingdom and variation in perceived access to supporting services. Clinical history taking was preferred to scoring systems. Fostering closer links with geriatricians appears supported.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7103526
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71035262020-04-01 Assessment methods and services for older people with cancer in the United Kingdom Kalsi, Tania Harari, Danielle World J Clin Oncol Evidence-Based Medicine BACKGROUND: National cancer strategy calls for comprehensive assessments for older people but current practice across the United Kingdom is not well described. AIM: To identify current assessment methods and access to relevant supporting services for older people with cancer. METHODS: A web-based survey (SurveyMonkey) targeting health professionals (oncologists, cancer surgeons, geriatricians, nurses and allied health professionals) was distributed January-April 2016 via United Kingdom nationally recognised professional societies. Responses were analysed in frequencies and percentages. Chi Square was used to compare differences in responses between different groups. RESULTS: 640 health care professionals responded. Only 14.1% often/always involved geriatricians and 52.0% often/always involved general practitioners in assessments. When wider assessments were used, they always/often influenced decision-making (40.5%) or at least sometimes (34.1%). But 30.5%-44.3% did not use structured assessment methods. Most clinicians favoured clinical history taking. Few used scoring tools and few wished to use them in the future. Most had urgent access to palliative care but only a minority had urgent access to other key supporting professionals (e.g. geriatricians, social workers, psychiatry). 69.6% were interested in developing Geriatric Oncology services with geriatricians. CONCLUSION: There is variability in assessment methods for older people with cancer across the United Kingdom and variation in perceived access to supporting services. Clinical history taking was preferred to scoring systems. Fostering closer links with geriatricians appears supported. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2020-03-24 2020-03-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7103526/ /pubmed/32257846 http://dx.doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v11.i3.152 Text en ©The Author(s) 2019. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.
spellingShingle Evidence-Based Medicine
Kalsi, Tania
Harari, Danielle
Assessment methods and services for older people with cancer in the United Kingdom
title Assessment methods and services for older people with cancer in the United Kingdom
title_full Assessment methods and services for older people with cancer in the United Kingdom
title_fullStr Assessment methods and services for older people with cancer in the United Kingdom
title_full_unstemmed Assessment methods and services for older people with cancer in the United Kingdom
title_short Assessment methods and services for older people with cancer in the United Kingdom
title_sort assessment methods and services for older people with cancer in the united kingdom
topic Evidence-Based Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7103526/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32257846
http://dx.doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v11.i3.152
work_keys_str_mv AT kalsitania assessmentmethodsandservicesforolderpeoplewithcancerintheunitedkingdom
AT hararidanielle assessmentmethodsandservicesforolderpeoplewithcancerintheunitedkingdom