Kalsi Tania, Harari Danielle
Department of Ageing and Health, Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London SE1 7EH, United Kingdom.
World J Clin Oncol. 2020 Mar 24;11(3):152-161. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v11.i3.152.
National cancer strategy calls for comprehensive assessments for older people but current practice across the United Kingdom is not well described.
To identify current assessment methods and access to relevant supporting services for older people with cancer.
A web-based survey (SurveyMonkey) targeting health professionals (oncologists, cancer surgeons, geriatricians, nurses and allied health professionals) was distributed January-April 2016 United Kingdom nationally recognised professional societies. Responses were analysed in frequencies and percentages. Chi Square was used to compare differences in responses between different groups.
640 health care professionals responded. Only 14.1% often/always involved geriatricians and 52.0% often/always involved general practitioners in assessments. When wider assessments were used, they always/often influenced decision-making (40.5%) or at least sometimes (34.1%). But 30.5%-44.3% did not use structured assessment methods. Most clinicians favoured clinical history taking. Few used scoring tools and few wished to use them in the future. Most had urgent access to palliative care but only a minority had urgent access to other key supporting professionals (. geriatricians, social workers, psychiatry). 69.6% were interested in developing Geriatric Oncology services with geriatricians.
There is variability in assessment methods for older people with cancer across the United Kingdom and variation in perceived access to supporting services. Clinical history taking was preferred to scoring systems. Fostering closer links with geriatricians appears supported.
国家癌症战略要求对老年人进行全面评估，但英国目前的做法尚无详尽描述。
确定针对老年癌症患者的当前评估方法以及获得相关支持服务的情况。
2016年1月至4月，通过网络调查（SurveyMonkey）向卫生专业人员（肿瘤学家、癌症外科医生、老年病医生、护士和专职医疗人员）发放问卷，这些人员来自英国全国公认的专业协会。对回复进行频率和百分比分析。采用卡方检验比较不同组之间回复的差异。
640名卫生保健专业人员做出回复。在评估中，只有14.1%的人经常/总是让老年病医生参与，52.0%的人经常/总是让全科医生参与。采用更广泛的评估时，这些评估总是/经常影响决策（40.5%）或至少有时影响（34.1%）。但30.5% - 44.3%的人未使用结构化评估方法。大多数临床医生倾向于采集临床病史。很少有人使用评分工具，且很少有人希望在未来使用。大多数人能紧急获得姑息治疗，但只有少数人能紧急获得其他关键支持专业人员（如老年病医生、社会工作者、精神科医生）的帮助。69.6%的人有兴趣与老年病医生共同开展老年肿瘤学服务。
英国针对老年癌症患者的评估方法存在差异，在获得支持服务方面的认知也有所不同。采集临床病史比评分系统更受青睐。加强与老年病医生的紧密联系似乎得到支持。
