Communication between primary care physicians and radiation oncologists regarding patients with cancer treated with palliative radiotherapy

Elizabeth A. Barnes, John Hanson, Catherine M. Neumann, Cheryl L. Nekolaichuk, Eduardo Bruera

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    38 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the satisfaction and information needs of primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding communication with radiation oncologists (ROs), with respect to patients who receive palliative radiotherapy (RT). A selected objective was to evaluate the agreement between PCPs' expectations and the content of the RO letter sent after completion of RT. PCPs' knowledge of the role of palliative RT and their awareness of available patient support services were also determined. Methods: The PCPs of patients discharged from the Cross Cancer Institute after receiving palliative RT were surveyed using a mail-out questionnare. Questions regarding communication, RT knowledge, and awareness of support services were asked. The corresponding RO letter was reviewed. Results: A total of 148 PCPs were identified and were mailed questionnaires, with 114 (77%) responding. Overall, 80% (87 of 109) of PCPs found the RO letter to be useful in patient management. However, there was poor (< 53%) agreement between PCPs' expectations and the actual content of the RO letter. Knowledge of the indications and effectiveness of palliative RT was limited, with PCPs obtaining a median score of 4 of a possible 8. Only 27% (31 of 114) of PCPs were aware of all five of the patient support services listed. Conclusion: Results show that although the majority of PCPs found the RO letter useful, they believed that the letter lacked important information while containing unnecessary details. Communication between PCPs and ROs needs improvement, especially considering that PCPs seem to have limited knowledge of palliative RT. (C) 2000 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)2902-2907
    Number of pages6
    JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
    Volume18
    Issue number15
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jan 1 2000

    Fingerprint

    Primary Care Physicians
    Radiotherapy
    Communication
    Neoplasms
    Radiation Oncologists
    Physician's Role
    Postal Service

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Oncology
    • Cancer Research

    Cite this

    Communication between primary care physicians and radiation oncologists regarding patients with cancer treated with palliative radiotherapy. / Barnes, Elizabeth A.; Hanson, John; Neumann, Catherine M.; Nekolaichuk, Cheryl L.; Bruera, Eduardo.

    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 18, No. 15, 01.01.2000, p. 2902-2907.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Barnes, Elizabeth A. ; Hanson, John ; Neumann, Catherine M. ; Nekolaichuk, Cheryl L. ; Bruera, Eduardo. / Communication between primary care physicians and radiation oncologists regarding patients with cancer treated with palliative radiotherapy. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2000 ; Vol. 18, No. 15. pp. 2902-2907.
    @article{c2f687fb7e4d40a18b29b1769571aae2,
    title = "Communication between primary care physicians and radiation oncologists regarding patients with cancer treated with palliative radiotherapy",
    abstract = "Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the satisfaction and information needs of primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding communication with radiation oncologists (ROs), with respect to patients who receive palliative radiotherapy (RT). A selected objective was to evaluate the agreement between PCPs' expectations and the content of the RO letter sent after completion of RT. PCPs' knowledge of the role of palliative RT and their awareness of available patient support services were also determined. Methods: The PCPs of patients discharged from the Cross Cancer Institute after receiving palliative RT were surveyed using a mail-out questionnare. Questions regarding communication, RT knowledge, and awareness of support services were asked. The corresponding RO letter was reviewed. Results: A total of 148 PCPs were identified and were mailed questionnaires, with 114 (77{\%}) responding. Overall, 80{\%} (87 of 109) of PCPs found the RO letter to be useful in patient management. However, there was poor (< 53{\%}) agreement between PCPs' expectations and the actual content of the RO letter. Knowledge of the indications and effectiveness of palliative RT was limited, with PCPs obtaining a median score of 4 of a possible 8. Only 27{\%} (31 of 114) of PCPs were aware of all five of the patient support services listed. Conclusion: Results show that although the majority of PCPs found the RO letter useful, they believed that the letter lacked important information while containing unnecessary details. Communication between PCPs and ROs needs improvement, especially considering that PCPs seem to have limited knowledge of palliative RT. (C) 2000 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.",
    author = "Barnes, {Elizabeth A.} and John Hanson and Neumann, {Catherine M.} and Nekolaichuk, {Cheryl L.} and Eduardo Bruera",
    year = "2000",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1200/JCO.2000.18.15.2902",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "18",
    pages = "2902--2907",
    journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
    issn = "0732-183X",
    publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
    number = "15",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Communication between primary care physicians and radiation oncologists regarding patients with cancer treated with palliative radiotherapy

    AU - Barnes, Elizabeth A.

    AU - Hanson, John

    AU - Neumann, Catherine M.

    AU - Nekolaichuk, Cheryl L.

    AU - Bruera, Eduardo

    PY - 2000/1/1

    Y1 - 2000/1/1

    N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the satisfaction and information needs of primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding communication with radiation oncologists (ROs), with respect to patients who receive palliative radiotherapy (RT). A selected objective was to evaluate the agreement between PCPs' expectations and the content of the RO letter sent after completion of RT. PCPs' knowledge of the role of palliative RT and their awareness of available patient support services were also determined. Methods: The PCPs of patients discharged from the Cross Cancer Institute after receiving palliative RT were surveyed using a mail-out questionnare. Questions regarding communication, RT knowledge, and awareness of support services were asked. The corresponding RO letter was reviewed. Results: A total of 148 PCPs were identified and were mailed questionnaires, with 114 (77%) responding. Overall, 80% (87 of 109) of PCPs found the RO letter to be useful in patient management. However, there was poor (< 53%) agreement between PCPs' expectations and the actual content of the RO letter. Knowledge of the indications and effectiveness of palliative RT was limited, with PCPs obtaining a median score of 4 of a possible 8. Only 27% (31 of 114) of PCPs were aware of all five of the patient support services listed. Conclusion: Results show that although the majority of PCPs found the RO letter useful, they believed that the letter lacked important information while containing unnecessary details. Communication between PCPs and ROs needs improvement, especially considering that PCPs seem to have limited knowledge of palliative RT. (C) 2000 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

    AB - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the satisfaction and information needs of primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding communication with radiation oncologists (ROs), with respect to patients who receive palliative radiotherapy (RT). A selected objective was to evaluate the agreement between PCPs' expectations and the content of the RO letter sent after completion of RT. PCPs' knowledge of the role of palliative RT and their awareness of available patient support services were also determined. Methods: The PCPs of patients discharged from the Cross Cancer Institute after receiving palliative RT were surveyed using a mail-out questionnare. Questions regarding communication, RT knowledge, and awareness of support services were asked. The corresponding RO letter was reviewed. Results: A total of 148 PCPs were identified and were mailed questionnaires, with 114 (77%) responding. Overall, 80% (87 of 109) of PCPs found the RO letter to be useful in patient management. However, there was poor (< 53%) agreement between PCPs' expectations and the actual content of the RO letter. Knowledge of the indications and effectiveness of palliative RT was limited, with PCPs obtaining a median score of 4 of a possible 8. Only 27% (31 of 114) of PCPs were aware of all five of the patient support services listed. Conclusion: Results show that although the majority of PCPs found the RO letter useful, they believed that the letter lacked important information while containing unnecessary details. Communication between PCPs and ROs needs improvement, especially considering that PCPs seem to have limited knowledge of palliative RT. (C) 2000 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033866958&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033866958&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.15.2902

    DO - 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.15.2902

    M3 - Article

    C2 - 10920139

    AN - SCOPUS:0033866958

    VL - 18

    SP - 2902

    EP - 2907

    JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

    JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

    SN - 0732-183X

    IS - 15

    ER -