Integration of oncology and palliative care: setting a benchmark.

Vayne-Bossert, P; Richard, E; Good, P; Sullivan, K; Hardy, JR

Integration of oncology and palliative care: setting a benchmark.

Vayne-Bossert, P Richard, E Good, P

Sullivan, K Hardy, JR

Permalink

Publisher:: SPRINGER
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Support Care Cancer, 2017, 25, (10), pp. 3253-3259
Issue Date:: 2017-10

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	out (1).pdf	Published version	382.79 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Vayne-Bossert, P
dc.contributor.author	Richard, E
dc.contributor.author	Good, P https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8198-0375
dc.contributor.author	Sullivan, K
dc.contributor.author	Hardy, JR
dc.date.accessioned	2022-10-03T21:14:10Z
dc.date.available	2017-04-24
dc.date.available	2022-10-03T21:14:10Z
dc.date.issued	2017-10
dc.identifier.citation	Support Care Cancer, 2017, 25, (10), pp. 3253-3259
dc.identifier.issn	0941-4355
dc.identifier.issn	1433-7339
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/162252
dc.description.abstract	BACKGROUND: Integration of oncology and palliative care (PC) should be the standard model of care for patients with advanced cancer. An expert panel developed criteria that constitute integration. This study determined whether the PC service within this Health Service, which is considered to be fully "integrated", could be benchmarked against these criteria. METHODS: A survey was undertaken to determine the perceived level of integration of oncology and palliative care by all health care professionals (HCPs) within our cancer centre. An objective determination of integration was obtained from chart reviews of deceased patients. Integration was defined as >70% of all respondents answered "agree" or "strongly agree" to each indicator and >70% of patient charts supported each criteria. RESULTS: Thirty-four HCPs participated in the survey (response rate 69%). Over 90% were aware of the outpatient PC clinic, interdisciplinary and consultation team, PC senior leadership, and the acceptance of concurrent anticancer therapy. None of the other criteria met the 70% agreement mark but many respondents lacked the necessary knowledge to respond. The chart review included 67 patients, 92% of whom were seen by the PC team prior to death. The median time from referral to death was 103 days (range 0-1347). The level of agreement across all criteria was below our predefined definition of integration. CONCLUSION: The integration criteria relating to service delivery are medically focused and do not lend themselves to interdisciplinary review. The objective criteria can be audited and serve both as a benchmark and a basis for improvement activities.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	SPRINGER
dc.relation.ispartof	Support Care Cancer
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/s00520-017-3736-2
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	11 Medical and Health Sciences, 17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences
dc.subject.classification	Oncology & Carcinogenesis
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Attitude of Health Personnel
dc.subject.mesh	Benchmarking
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Health Personnel
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Integrative Medicine
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Medical Oncology
dc.subject.mesh	Middle Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Palliative Care
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Care Team
dc.subject.mesh	Referral and Consultation
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.subject.mesh	Young Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Palliative Care
dc.subject.mesh	Attitude of Health Personnel
dc.subject.mesh	Medical Oncology
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Middle Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Health Personnel
dc.subject.mesh	Benchmarking
dc.subject.mesh	Referral and Consultation
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Care Team
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Integrative Medicine
dc.subject.mesh	Young Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.title	Integration of oncology and palliative care: setting a benchmark.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	25
utslib.location.activity	Germany
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences
utslib.for	17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/IMPACCT
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2022-10-03T21:14:09Z
pubs.issue	10
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	25
utslib.citation.issue	10

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Integration of oncology and palliative care (PC) should be the standard model of care for patients with advanced cancer. An expert panel developed criteria that constitute integration. This study determined whether the PC service within this Health Service, which is considered to be fully "integrated", could be benchmarked against these criteria. METHODS: A survey was undertaken to determine the perceived level of integration of oncology and palliative care by all health care professionals (HCPs) within our cancer centre. An objective determination of integration was obtained from chart reviews of deceased patients. Integration was defined as >70% of all respondents answered "agree" or "strongly agree" to each indicator and >70% of patient charts supported each criteria. RESULTS: Thirty-four HCPs participated in the survey (response rate 69%). Over 90% were aware of the outpatient PC clinic, interdisciplinary and consultation team, PC senior leadership, and the acceptance of concurrent anticancer therapy. None of the other criteria met the 70% agreement mark but many respondents lacked the necessary knowledge to respond. The chart review included 67 patients, 92% of whom were seen by the PC team prior to death. The median time from referral to death was 103 days (range 0-1347). The level of agreement across all criteria was below our predefined definition of integration. CONCLUSION: The integration criteria relating to service delivery are medically focused and do not lend themselves to interdisciplinary review. The objective criteria can be audited and serve both as a benchmark and a basis for improvement activities.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/162252