Search

Objectives: Oncological home-hospitalization (OHH) might be a patient-centred approach to deal with the increasing burden of cancer on health-care facilities and finances. Before implementation into practice, its feasibility, costs and support among stakeholders should be evaluated. The purpose of this trial was to explore patients', specialists' and general practitioners' (GPs) perspectives towards the opportunities of implementing OHH within the Belgian health-care system., Methods: A regional cross-sectional survey study was launched in order to investigate the stakeholders' views on OHH and the current cancer care focusing on integration of primary care and continuous care., Results: Of the responders, 37 out of 163 patients (23%), 45 of 62 GPs (73%) and 10 of 15 specialists (67%) feel positive about the opportunities for OHH. Nevertheless, 11/15 specialists (73%) and 51/62 GPs (82%) feel primary care might currently be (too) little involved in order to ensure continuous care for cancer patients. Opportunities for improved continuous care are seen in better communication between primary care and hospital, and more patient contacts for primary care during the cancer treatment process., Conclusion: The results of this local survey study demonstrated there is support among different stakeholder groups for the implementation of OHH within the Belgian health-care context. However, some barriers impeding transmural continuous care should be tackled before implementing such model into practice. Better communication between health-care professionals and more patients contacts are suggested, and an adjusted legal and financial framework is required.

Objective: We previously validated uHear™ to screen for hearing loss in older patients with cancer without a known hearing loss, as part of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). In view of low specificity, we tested a new modified uHear™ scoring system as described by Handzel., Methods: Patients, aged ≥70 years, were evaluated by uHear™ and conventional audiometry, which is considered the gold standard, as part of a CGA. The pass or fail screening cut-off for uHear™ was defined as having ≥2 consecutive hearing grades starting from the moderate-severe threshold zone ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 kHz (modified Handzel-uHear™ scoring system). To accept the modified Handzel-uHear™ as screening tool, it was predefined that the combined sensitivity (S) and specificity (Sp) of the test (S + Sp/2) was at least 80% and that an actual combined (S + Sp)/2 of 90% would be found., Results: Ninety ears (45 subjects) were tested. Of those ears, 24.4% were identified as impaired by conventional audiometry. Modified Handzel-uHear™ identified 26.7% of tested ears as impaired. The combined (S + Sp)/2 of the modified Handzel-uHear™ was calculated as 77.5%, while in previous cohort, this was retrospectively calculated as 94.6%. A new uHear™ scoring system was proposed and tested in current and previous cohort. A (S + Sp)/2 of 80.2 and 78.8%, respectively, were obtained., Conclusion: uHear™ is a feasible tool for use within the CGA and shows promising results. However, further research is warranted to optimize the cut-off method before it could be routinely implemented within geriatric oncology.