LeBlanc Thomas W, O'Donnell Jonathan D, Crowley-Matoka Megan, Rabow Michael W, Smith Cardinale B, White Douglas B, Tiver Greer A, Arnold Robert M, Schenker Yael
Duke University School of Medicine; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; and University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
Duke University School of Medicine; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; and University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
J Oncol Pract. 2015 Mar;11(2):e230-8. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2014.001859.
Patients with hematologic malignancies are less likely to receive specialist palliative care services than patients with solid tumors. Reasons for this difference are poorly understood.
This was a multisite, mixed-methods study to understand and contrast perceptions of palliative care among hematologic and solid tumor oncologists using surveys assessing referral practices and in-depth semistructured interviews exploring views of palliative care. We compared referral patterns using standard statistical methods. We analyzed qualitative interview data using constant comparative methods to explore reasons for observed differences.
Among 66 interviewees, 23 oncologists cared exclusively for patients with hematologic malignancies; 43 treated only patients with solid tumors. Seven (30%) of 23 hematologic oncologists reported never referring to palliative care; all solid tumor oncologists had previously referred. In qualitative analyses, most hematologic oncologists viewed palliative care as end-of-life care, whereas most solid tumor oncologists viewed palliative care as a subspecialty that could assist with complex patient cases. Solid tumor oncologists emphasized practical barriers to palliative care referral, such as appointment availability and reimbursement issues. Hematologic oncologists emphasized philosophic concerns about palliative care referrals, including different treatment goals, responsiveness to chemotherapy, and preference for controlling even palliative aspects of patient care.
Most hematologic oncologists view palliative care as end-of-life care, whereas solid tumor oncologists more often view palliative care as a subspecialty for comanaging patients with complex cases. Efforts to integrate palliative care into hematologic malignancy practices will require solutions that address unique barriers to palliative care referral experienced by hematologic malignancy specialists.
与实体瘤患者相比,血液系统恶性肿瘤患者接受专科姑息治疗服务的可能性较小。造成这种差异的原因尚不清楚。
这是一项多地点、混合方法的研究,旨在通过评估转诊实践的调查以及探索姑息治疗观点的深入半结构化访谈,了解并对比血液系统肿瘤和实体瘤肿瘤学家对姑息治疗的看法。我们使用标准统计方法比较转诊模式。我们使用持续比较法分析定性访谈数据,以探究观察到的差异的原因。
在66名受访者中,23名肿瘤学家专门诊治血液系统恶性肿瘤患者;43名仅治疗实体瘤患者。23名血液系统肿瘤学家中有7名(30%)报告从未转诊至姑息治疗;所有实体瘤肿瘤学家都曾进行过转诊。在定性分析中,大多数血液系统肿瘤学家将姑息治疗视为临终关怀,而大多数实体瘤肿瘤学家将姑息治疗视为可以协助处理复杂患者病例的亚专业。实体瘤肿瘤学家强调了姑息治疗转诊的实际障碍,如预约可用性和报销问题。血液系统肿瘤学家强调了对姑息治疗转诊的哲学担忧,包括不同的治疗目标、对化疗的反应以及对控制患者护理甚至姑息方面的偏好。
大多数血液系统肿瘤学家将姑息治疗视为临终关怀,而实体瘤肿瘤学家更常将姑息治疗视为共同管理复杂病例患者的亚专业。将姑息治疗纳入血液系统恶性肿瘤治疗实践的努力将需要解决血液系统恶性肿瘤专家在姑息治疗转诊方面遇到的独特障碍的解决方案。