Abstract
Background:
Early palliative/supportive care (PSC) consultation and advance care planning (ACP) improve outcomes for patients with incurable cancer. However, PSC is underutilized in the United States.
Objective:
To examine philosophical differences among PSC, radiation oncology (RO), and medical oncology (MO) physicians in order to understand barriers to early PSC referral.
Design:
An electronic survey collected views of a nationwide cohort of health-care professionals regarding ACP and end-of-life care.
Setting/Participants/Measurements:
A subgroup analysis compared the responses from all 51 PSC, 178 RO, and 81 MO physician participants (12% response rate), using Pearson χ2 and Mann-Whitney U tests for categorical and ordinal data, respectively.
Results:
More statistically significant differences were observed between RO-PSC (12 questions) and MO-PSC (12 questions) than RO-MO (4 questions). Both RO and MO were more likely than PSC physicians to believe doctors adequately care for emotional (P < .001) and physical (P < .001) needs of patients with an incurable illness. Both RO and MO were also less likely to believe that PSC physicians were helpful at addressing these needs (P = .002 and <.001, respectively) or that patients’ awareness of their life expectancy leads to better medical (P = .007 and .002, respectively) and personal (P = .001 for each) decisions. Palliative/supportive care physicians felt that doctors are generally less successful at explaining/clarifying advanced life-sustaining treatments than RO (P < .001) or MO (P = .004). MO favored later initiation of ACP than either RO (P = .006) or PSC physicians (P = .004).
Conclusions:
Differences in perception of appropriate end-of-life care exist between oncologists and PSC physicians, suggesting a need for improved education and communication between these groups.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
