scholarly journals 453 Clinical audit on quality of cancer care within the oncological network of piedmont and valle d’aosta: ovarian cancer treatment, interim analysis 2017-2018

Author(s):  
M Laudani ◽  
E Pagano ◽  
E Pagano ◽  
G Ciccone ◽  
G Ciccone ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Paolo Zola ◽  
Marilena Scozzafava ◽  
Eva Pagano ◽  
Gianni Ciccone ◽  
Maria Elena Laudani ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Kristine A. Donovan ◽  
Heidi S. Donovan ◽  
David Cella ◽  
Martha E. Gaines ◽  
Richard T. Penson ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 141 ◽  
pp. 194 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.L. Swanson ◽  
J.M. Beissel ◽  
A. Kumar ◽  
M. Wick ◽  
G. Beek ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 149 ◽  
pp. 125
Author(s):  
S. Cham ◽  
Y. Huang ◽  
A.I. Tergas ◽  
J.Y. Hou ◽  
C. St. Clair ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS6650-TPS6650
Author(s):  
Dragan Trivanovic ◽  
Irena Hrstic ◽  
Anuska Budisavljevic ◽  
Boris Kopic ◽  
Bruno Nincevic

TPS6650 Background: Accurate evaluation of symptom intensities is essential for optimal cancer care and improving the quality of life of patients. An inappropriate interpretation of symptoms may lead to treatment outcomes failure, overdose of medication, or may leave the patients undertreated. However, the perception of symptoms can vary between the treating physician and patient. Physicians appear to underestimate the patient symptoms. And this variation in the perception of side effects can lead to wrong assumptions and subsequent treatment changes, affecting treatment effectiveness and quality of life. There is growing interest to enhance symptom monitoring during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcomes, leaving open the question of whether the benefits of systems to reveal self-reports outweigh their added cost. There are several tools for assessment of symptoms in oncology. In cancer treatment clinical trials, the standard source of adverse symptom data is clinician reporting by use of items from PRO-CTCAE, developed by NCI. To address these questions, we conducted a single-center prospective trial to test whether systematic tablet computer-based collection of patient-reported symptoms during chemotherapy treatment, with automated alerts to clinicians for severe adverse events (grade 3-4) will change in questionnaire score at 6 months compared with baseline. Secondary endpoints will include difference in unscheduled clinic visits frequency, and survival. Methods: Patients initiating chemotherapy at General Hospital Pula Oncology Clinic for advanced or metastatic gastrointestinal, lung, breast, genitourinary, or gynecologic cancers will be enrolled in a nonblinded, prospective trial of self-reporting of symptoms, compare with usual care. Patients receiving chemotherapy and their clinicians will be independently asked on the same day to complete 10 symptoms (including fatigue, pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dysgeusia, appetite, sleep disturbance, fever and hair loss). Participants will remain on study until discontinuation of cancer treatment, withdrawal, or death. All participants will provide written informed consent and followed for up to 28 months or until death. To compare how patient’s vs clinician’s reports relate to clinical events, a time-dependent Cox regression model adjusted for covariates including cancer type, age, sex, and education level will be used to measure associations between reaching particular grade severity thresholds with the risk of death and unscheduled clinic visits. Clinical trial information: 2019-000855-15.


2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-99
Author(s):  
Kento Masukawa ◽  
Kazuki Sato ◽  
Megumi Shimizu ◽  
Tatsuya Morita ◽  
Mitsunori Miyashita

Abstract Objective To evaluate the quality of the structure and process of cancer care from the perspective of patients with cancer, we developed a Cancer Care Evaluation Scale. Methods Two anonymous online surveys of patients with cancer in Japan were conducted using a convenience sample of 400 adult cancer outpatients. Results In total, 162 patients participated in the online surveys. Factor analysis revealed that the Cancer Care Evaluation Scale had the following 12 domains: (i) relationship with physician, (ii) relationship with nurse, (iii) physical care by physician, (iv) physical care by nurse, (v) psycho-existential care, (vi) help with decision-making for patients, (vii) coordination and consistency, (viii) environment, (ix) cost, (x) availability, (xi) care for the side effects of cancer treatment by a physician, and (xii) care for the side effects of cancer treatment by a nurse. The Cancer Care Evaluation Scale was correlated with overall care satisfaction (r = 0.75), but not with the quality of life (r = 0.40). In regard to rest–retest reliability, most items showed an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.7 or higher. Conclusion The validity and reliability of the Cancer Care Evaluation Scale were confirmed, suggesting that this tool is useful for evaluating the quality of cancer care from the perspective of patients with cancer.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document