摘要
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.
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(Survey Monkey) 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.RESULTS640 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.
