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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
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 |