Search

Aim: To identify barriers between health and communication in oncology in order to promote the best possible practice. The areas of communication to be focused on are communication directly with the patient, communication within the scientific community, and communication with the media., Material and Methods: A working group including eminent experts from the national mass media, healthcare system, and patients' advocacy has been established on behalf of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), with the aim of developing suitable recommendations for the best communication in oncology. A literature search has been conducted selecting primary studies related to the best practices applied to communication in oncology. Subsequent to having identified the most representative statements, through a consensus conference using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles modified Delphi method, the panel evaluated the relevance of each statement to support useful strategies to develop effective communication between oncologist physicians and patients, communication within the scientific community, and communication with media outlets, including social media., Results: A total of 292 statements have been extracted from 100 articles. Following an evaluation of relevance, it was found that among the 142 statements achieving the highest scores, 30 of these have been considered of particular interest by the panel., Conclusions: This consensus and the arising document represent an attempt to strengthen the strategic alliance between key figures in communication, identifying high-impact recommendations for the management of communication in oncology with respect to patients, the wider scientific community, and the media., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Goals: The aim of this prospective study was to assess the quality of pain management hospitalized cancer patients., Patients and Methods: In a quantitative and qualitative evaluation from six oncology centers in Italy, all consecutive cancer patients complaining of pain and hospitalized during the same 2 weeks were requested to fill in a McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), a present pain intensity scale (PPI), and a hospital anxiety and depression acale (HADS), and to answer a questionnaire focused (QF) on the quality of medical and nursing care. The healthcare provider's antalgic prescriptions were assessed by an index of pain management (IPM)., Main Results: Of 120 patients with pain admitted to oncology divisions (65 men and 52 women; mean age 57 years, range 21-79 years), 117 completed the questionnaires. The quantitative evaluation (PPI) showed a significant pain reduction between admission and discharge pain levels-from 2.65 to 1.50 ( p<0.001). While a significant reduction of anxiety (HADS) was also found-from 10.24 to 9.11 ( p<0.001)-depression did not improve (9.83 and 9.72). The most relevant information from qualitative evaluation (QF) was: in 37.6% of patients, pain level was higher overnight; 47% waited for spontaneous decrease of pain intensity before asking for nurse or physician intervention; 69% asked for nurse help when pain level was really high. The health care response to patients' pain was not completely satisfactory, since analgesic prescription was adequate in 56.52% but inadequate in 43.47%., Conclusions: Pain control in hospitalized cancer patients is not completely satisfactory. The physician's attitude is to underestimate and undertreat pain, while nurses are not adequately trained for timely intervention despite published guidelines for pain management. The findings of this study support the concern of inadequate knowledge and inappropriate attitudes regarding pain management, even in cancer patients hospitalized in medical oncology divisions.