Timely integration of palliative care into oncology care for patients with bone metastases at the radiotherapy department: A pilot study on acceptability and feasibility

Q1 Nursing
Anouk van Oss , Arianne Stoppelenburg , Ellen de Nijs , Rebecca van Jaarsveld , Carly S. Heipon , Natasja J.H. Raijmakers , Yvette M. van der Linden
{"title":"Timely integration of palliative care into oncology care for patients with bone metastases at the radiotherapy department: A pilot study on acceptability and feasibility","authors":"Anouk van Oss ,&nbsp;Arianne Stoppelenburg ,&nbsp;Ellen de Nijs ,&nbsp;Rebecca van Jaarsveld ,&nbsp;Carly S. Heipon ,&nbsp;Natasja J.H. Raijmakers ,&nbsp;Yvette M. van der Linden","doi":"10.1016/j.tipsro.2025.100317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and aim</h3><div>Patients with bone metastases may have needs that extend beyond the management of pain by radiotherapy. Concurrent palliative care leads to improved quality of life, but is often introduced late. In this pilot study, we assessed the acceptability and feasibility of an introdu0000ctory conversation with a palliative care consultant at referral for palliative radiotherapy.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>Patients with bone metastases and their family caregivers were scheduled for an introductory conversation with a consultant from the hospital palliative care team. During this meeting, the potential benefits of integrating palliative care into their current or future care was discussed. Using statements on a 5-point Likert scale, patients and family caregivers independently evaluated the acceptability of the conversation, and consultants evaluated the feasibility.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Between December 2022 and March 2024, 48 patients were included in the study. Median age was 73 years, 63 % were male. Most patients (89 %) and family caregivers (96 %) appreciated the introductory conversation, were unaware of the existence of a palliative care team (60 %, 67 %, respectively), and would contact the team when having questions or concerns (77 %, 82 %). Some found the conversation confronting (17 %, 11 %), or felt it was too early in the illness trajectory (31 %, 26 %). Follow-up consultations were scheduled for 8 patients (17 %). Consultants were able to conduct the conversation as instructed (91 %), though 15 % indicated insufficient time for preparation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Introductory conversations about palliative care at referral for palliative radiotherapy appear both acceptable and feasible, and may enhance timely integration of palliative care into oncology care for patients with bone metastases.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36328,"journal":{"name":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","volume":"35 ","pages":"Article 100317"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405632425000186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aim

Patients with bone metastases may have needs that extend beyond the management of pain by radiotherapy. Concurrent palliative care leads to improved quality of life, but is often introduced late. In this pilot study, we assessed the acceptability and feasibility of an introdu0000ctory conversation with a palliative care consultant at referral for palliative radiotherapy.

Material and methods

Patients with bone metastases and their family caregivers were scheduled for an introductory conversation with a consultant from the hospital palliative care team. During this meeting, the potential benefits of integrating palliative care into their current or future care was discussed. Using statements on a 5-point Likert scale, patients and family caregivers independently evaluated the acceptability of the conversation, and consultants evaluated the feasibility.

Results

Between December 2022 and March 2024, 48 patients were included in the study. Median age was 73 years, 63 % were male. Most patients (89 %) and family caregivers (96 %) appreciated the introductory conversation, were unaware of the existence of a palliative care team (60 %, 67 %, respectively), and would contact the team when having questions or concerns (77 %, 82 %). Some found the conversation confronting (17 %, 11 %), or felt it was too early in the illness trajectory (31 %, 26 %). Follow-up consultations were scheduled for 8 patients (17 %). Consultants were able to conduct the conversation as instructed (91 %), though 15 % indicated insufficient time for preparation.

Conclusion

Introductory conversations about palliative care at referral for palliative radiotherapy appear both acceptable and feasible, and may enhance timely integration of palliative care into oncology care for patients with bone metastases.
及时将姑息治疗纳入放疗科骨转移患者的肿瘤治疗:可接受性和可行性的初步研究
背景和目的骨转移患者可能有放疗治疗疼痛之外的需求。同时进行姑息治疗可改善生活质量,但通常较晚进行。在这项初步研究中,我们评估了在转诊姑息放疗时与姑息治疗顾问进行介绍性对话的可接受性和可行性。材料和方法安排骨转移患者及其家庭护理人员与医院姑息治疗团队的顾问进行介绍性对话。在这次会议上,讨论了将姑息治疗纳入当前或未来护理的潜在益处。使用李克特5分量表的陈述,患者和家庭照顾者独立评估对话的可接受性,咨询师评估可行性。结果在2022年12月至2024年3月期间,48名患者被纳入研究。中位年龄73岁,63%为男性。大多数患者(89%)和家庭照顾者(96%)欣赏介绍性谈话,不知道姑息治疗团队的存在(分别为60%和67%),并且在有问题或担忧时会联系团队(77%和82%)。有些人认为谈话是面对面的(17%,11%),或者觉得在疾病轨迹中太早了(31%,26%)。8例患者(17%)安排了随访咨询。咨询师能够按照指示进行谈话(91%),尽管15%的人表示准备时间不足。结论姑息治疗患者转诊时关于姑息治疗的介绍性对话既可接受又可行,并可促进骨转移患者将姑息治疗及时纳入肿瘤治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
67 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信