Oncology Care in the UAE

2021 ◽  
pp. 521-538
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Abu-Gheida ◽  
Neil A. Nijhawan ◽  
Humaid O. Al-Shamsi
Keyword(s):  
Oncology Care

scholarly journals Evaluating Barriers and Opportunities in Delivering High-Quality Oncology Care in a Resource-Limited Setting Using a Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Chika R. Nwachukwu ◽  
Omobola Mudasiru ◽  
Lynn Million ◽  
Shruti Sheth ◽  
Hope Qamoos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Needs Assessment ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Hospital Staff ◽  
Teaching Hospitals ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Quality Cancer Care ◽  
Oncology Care

Purpose Despite recognition of both the growing cancer burden in low- and middle-income countries and the disproportionately high mortality rates in these settings, delivery of high-quality cancer care remains a challenge. The disparities in cancer care outcomes for many geographic regions result from barriers that are likely complex and understudied. This study describes the development and use of a streamlined needs assessment questionnaire (NAQ) to understand the barriers to providing quality cancer care, identifies areas for improvement, and formulates recommendations for implementation. Methods Using a comprehensive NAQ, in-depth interviews were conducted with 17 hospital staff involved in cancer care at two teaching hospitals in Nigeria. Data were analyzed using content analysis and organized into a framework with preset codes and emergent codes, where applicable. Results Data from the interviews were organized into six broad themes: staff, stuff, system, space, lack of palliative care, and provider bias, with key barriers within themes including: financial, infrastructural, lack of awareness, limited human capacity resources, lack of palliative care, and provider perspective on patient-related barriers to cancer care. Specific solutions based on ability to reasonably implement were subcategorized into short-, medium-, and long-term goals. Conclusion This study provides a framework for a streamlined initial needs assessment and a unique discussion on the barriers to high-quality oncology care that are prevalent in resource-constrained settings. We report the feasibility of collecting and organizing data using a streamlined NAQ and provide a thorough and in-depth understanding of the challenges in this setting. Knowledge gained from the assessments will inform steps to improve oncology cancer in these settings.

scholarly journals COVD-25. THE PARADOXICAL EFFECTS OF COVID-19 ON CANCER CARE IN THE NEURO-ONCOLOGY SETTING

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii26-ii26
Author(s):  
Nicole Cort ◽  
Alex Broom ◽  
Katherine Kenny ◽  
Alexander Page ◽  
Jennifer Durling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Adult Brain ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Traditional Practice ◽  
Delivery Of Care ◽  
Paradoxical Effects ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
The Impact

Abstract COVID-19 has caused ongoing interruptions to healthcare systems worldwide, shifting care to virtual platforms, and placing significant economic and logistical burdens on clinical practice. The pandemic has created uncertainty in delivering the standard of care, both in areas of cancer diagnosis and treatment, especially within neuro-oncology. Due to the pandemic, care and operational planning goals have shifted to infection prevention, modifying recommendations to decrease viral transmission and increasing telemedicine use, potentially creating a burden on implementing evidence-based medicine. These dynamics have since begun to redefine traditional practice and research regimens, impacting the comprehensive care that cancer patients can and should receive; and the enduring consequences for the delivery of healthcare. The impact of COVID-19 on oncology practice and trials might endure well beyond the short- to mid-term of the active pandemic. Therefore, these shifts must be accompanied by improved training and awareness, enhanced infrastructure, and evidence-based support to harness the positives and offset the potential negative consequences of the impacts of COVID-19 on cancer care. To address these paradoxical effects, we will conduct iterative, qualitative (face-to-face/video conference) interviews with neuro-oncology clinical and research professionals and adult brain tumor patients receiving care during the pandemic. We will capture unique aspects of oncology care: the lived, subjective, situated, and contingent accounts of patients and medical professionals, especially during a pandemic. We will also specifically compare the impact of telehealth during the pandemic on delivery of care to complex neuro-oncology patients. A summary of this in-depth, qualitative approach will result in a sophisticated understanding of neuro-oncology care on the frontline at a time of crisis, as experienced during a pandemic, to articulate best practices for future implementation.

scholarly journals COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Cancer Patients: A Single Centre Experience

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (14) ◽  
pp. 3573
Author(s):  
Alfred Chung Pui So ◽  
Harriet McGrath ◽  
Jonathan Ting ◽  
Krishnie Srikandarajah ◽  
Styliani Germanou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Vaccine Safety ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Solid Malignancy ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Oncology Centre

Emergency approval of vaccines against COVID-19 provides an opportunity for us to return to pre-pandemic oncology care. However, safety data in cancer patients is lacking due to their exclusion from most phase III trials. We included all patients aged less than 65 years who received a COVID-19 vaccine from 8 December 2020 to 28 February 2021 at our London tertiary oncology centre. Solicited and unsolicited vaccine-related adverse events (VRAEs) were collected using telephone or face-to-face consultation. Within the study period, 373 patients received their first dose of vaccine: Pfizer/BioNTech (75.1%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (23.6%), Moderna (0.3%), and unknown (1.1%). Median follow-up was 25 days (5–85). Median age was 56 years (19–65). Of the patients, 94.9% had a solid malignancy and 76.7% were stage 3–4. The most common cancers were breast (34.0%), lung (13.4%), colorectal (10.2%), and gynaecological (10.2%). Of the patients, 88.5% were receiving anti-cancer treatment (36.2% parenteral chemotherapy and 15.3% immunotherapy), 76.1% developed any grade VRAE of which 2.1% were grade 3. No grade 4/5 or anaphylaxis were observed. The most common VRAEs within 7 days post-vaccination were sore arm (61.7%), fatigue (18.2%), and headaches (12.1%). Most common grade 3 VRAE was fatigue (1.1%). Our results demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccines in oncology patients have mild reactogenicity.

scholarly journals Commentary: Quality nutrition care is integral to the Oncology Care Model

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Beth Arensberg ◽  
Beth Besecker ◽  
Laura Weldishofer ◽  
Susan Drawert
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Nutrition Therapy ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Nutrition Care ◽  
Ambulatory Oncology ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
Improvement Programs ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Registered Dietitian Nutritionists

AbstractThe Oncology Care Model (OCM) is a US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) specialty model implemented in 2016, to provide higher quality, more highly coordinated oncology care at the same or lower costs. Under the OCM, oncology clinics enter into payment arrangements that include financial and performance accountability for patients receiving chemotherapy treatment. In addition, OCM clinics commit to providing enhanced services to Medicare beneficiaries, including care coordination, navigation, and following national treatment guidelines. Nutrition is a component of best-practice cancer care, yet it may not be addressed by OCM providers even though up to 80% of patients with cancer develop malnutrition and poor nutrition has a profound impact on cancer treatment and survivorship. Only about half of US ambulatory oncology settings screen for malnutrition, registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) are not routinely employed by oncology clinics, and the medical nutrition therapy they provide is often not reimbursed. Thus, adequate nutrition care in US oncology clinics remains a gap area. Some oncology clinics are addressing this gap through implementation of nutrition-focused quality improvement programs (QIPs) but many are not. What is needed is a change of perspective. This paper outlines how and why quality nutrition care is integral to the OCM and can benefit patient health and provider outcomes.

Oncology care planning. Elements for care quality and management improving

2006 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 178-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Expósito Hernández ◽  
Carmen Domínguez Nogueira
Keyword(s):  
Care Quality ◽  
Care Planning ◽  
Oncology Care

American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion: The Integration of Palliative Care Into Standard Oncology Care

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 880-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Smith ◽  
Sarah Temin ◽  
Erin R. Alesi ◽  
Amy P. Abernethy ◽  
Tracy A. Balboni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Metastatic Cancer ◽  
Expert Consensus ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Palliative Care Services ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
American Society

Purpose An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the integration of palliative care services into standard oncology practice at the time a person is diagnosed with metastatic or advanced cancer. Clinical Context Palliative care is frequently misconstrued as synonymous with end-of-life care. Palliative care is focused on the relief of suffering, in all of its dimensions, throughout the course of a patient's illness. Although the use of hospice and other palliative care services at the end of life has increased, many patients are enrolled in hospice less than 3 weeks before their death, which limits the benefit they may gain from these services. By potentially improving quality of life (QOL), cost of care, and even survival in patients with metastatic cancer, palliative care has increasing relevance for the care of patients with cancer. Until recently, data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating the benefits of palliative care in patients with metastatic cancer who are also receiving standard oncology care have not been available. Recent Data Seven published RCTs form the basis of this PCO. Provisional Clinical Opinion Based on strong evidence from a phase III RCT, patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer should be offered concurrent palliative care and standard oncologic care at initial diagnosis. While a survival benefit from early involvement of palliative care has not yet been demonstrated in other oncology settings, substantial evidence demonstrates that palliative care—when combined with standard cancer care or as the main focus of care—leads to better patient and caregiver outcomes. These include improvement in symptoms, QOL, and patient satisfaction, with reduced caregiver burden. Earlier involvement of palliative care also leads to more appropriate referral to and use of hospice, and reduced use of futile intensive care. While evidence clarifying optimal delivery of palliative care to improve patient outcomes is evolving, no trials to date have demonstrated harm to patients and caregivers, or excessive costs, from early involvement of palliative care. Therefore, it is the Panel's expert consensus that combined standard oncology care and palliative care should be considered early in the course of illness for any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden. Strategies to optimize concurrent palliative care and standard oncology care, with evaluation of its impact on important patient and caregiver outcomes (eg, QOL, survival, health care services utilization, and costs) and on society, should be an area of intense research. NOTE. ASCO's provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision making and identify questions and settings for further research. Because of the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical trials and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical practice. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCO's PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.

The Jules Bordet Institute, a pioneer in the development of intensive oncology care

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 155-166
Author(s):  
JP Sculier ◽  
AP Meert
Keyword(s):  
Oncology Care
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document