Search

Purpose: Pain is a major problem in all cancer stages. Cancer pain guidelines are developed to improve management of pain. It is unclear whether these recommendations are applied in daily practice. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess medical oncologists' adherence to an evidence-based clinical practice guideline in cancer pain management and their confidence in treatment choices.Methods: A cross-sectional case vignette survey describing a patient with intractable pancreatic cancer and pain was sent to all 268 medical oncologists registered at the Netherlands Association of Internal Medicine. Descriptive statistics were conducted.Results: Sixty-three of 268 medical oncologists (24 %) completed the survey. Adherence to the different recommendations of the guideline ranged from 18 to 100 %. Confidence for treatment choice ranged from 5.6 to 9.5 on a Numeric Rating Scale (0-10). Most of the responding oncologists (94 %) adhered to prescribing paracetamol as first-line pain treatment, and all prescribed a laxative in combination with opioids to prevent constipation. However, only 24 % of the respondents adhered to the guideline when first-line treatment had insufficient effect. Additionally, only 35 % adhered to the recommendation for insomnia treatment providing psychosocial support or using a multidimensional pain questionnaire besides pharmacological treatment. Finally, only 18 % adhered to the recommendation to perform a multidimensional pain assessment when disease worsens and pain increases.Conclusions: The recommendations of the guideline have been partly adopted in cancer pain practice by medical oncologists. Particularly, pain assessment is not applied in the recommended manner. Therefore, implementation strategies should focus on adequate pain assessment in patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Pain is a major problem in all cancer stages. Cancer pain guidelines are developed to improve management of pain. It is unclear whether these recommendations are applied in daily practice. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess medical oncologists' adherence to an evidence-based clinical practice guideline in cancer pain management and their confidence in treatment choices. Methods: A cross-sectional case vignette survey describing a patient with intractable pancreatic cancer and pain was sent to all 268 medical oncologists registered at the Netherlands Association of Internal Medicine. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Results: Sixty-three of 268 medical oncologists (24 %) completed the survey. Adherence to the different recommendations of the guideline ranged from 18 to 100 %. Confidence for treatment choice ranged from 5.6 to 9.5 on a Numeric Rating Scale (0-10). Most of the responding oncologists (94 %) adhered to prescribing paracetamol as first-line pain treatment, and all prescribed a laxative in combination with opioids to prevent constipation. However, only 24 % of the respondents adhered to the guideline when first-line treatment had insufficient effect. Additionally, only 35 % adhered to the recommendation for insomnia treatment providing psychosocial support or using a multidimensional pain questionnaire besides pharmacological treatment. Finally, only 18 % adhered to the recommendation to perform a multidimensional pain assessment when disease worsens and pain increases. Conclusions: The recommendations of the guideline have been partly adopted in cancer pain practice by medical oncologists. Particularly, pain assessment is not applied in the recommended manner. Therefore, implementation strategies should focus on adequate pain assessment in patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Quality indicators (QIs) for the organization of palliative care (PC) can contribute to quality improvement as they assess the key elements for adequate organization of care. They might differ between health care organization, cultures and economic resources. The aim of this study was face-validate an Indonesian set of QIs based on a European set, to compare the two sets of QIs and to test the applicability of Indonesian set. Methods: A modified two-round RAND Delphi process was conducted in Indonesia. Twenty-four health care professionals from different disciplines were invited as panellists to rate clarity and usefulness of 98 QIs. Next, a applicability pilot test took place in five hospitals. Results: A total of 21 panellists considered 76 QIs (78 %) face-valid and added two new ones. Of the QIs with the highest ratings, eight were evaluated by head nurses and two by reviewing 50 patient records. Each QI was met by at least two hospitals, and only one by all five. Regarding the two QIs on structured clinical record keeping, most medical records contained multidimensional aspects of care. Conclusions: We found that most QIs for the organization of PC developed for European countries were also considered face-valid for Indonesian hospitals. The top 10 QIs were applicable in Indonesia. This suggests that most of the organizational QIs are universal rather than country specific. The Indonesian set of QIs should be considered as a first step in developing, testing, and implementing a set of QIs for PC in Indonesia. We recommend validation in other Asian regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]