Relationships between family physicians' referral for palliative radiotherapy, knowledge of indications for radiotherapy, and prior training: a survey of rural and urban family physicians

Analysis of Oncology and Radiation Therapy Representation on the National Board of Medical Examiners Official Practice Material for the United States National Standardized Medical Board Examinations

Radiation therapy (RT) is a critical component of multidisciplinary cancer care, but has inconsistent curricular exposure. We characterize the radiation oncology (RO) content on the standardized undergraduate medical examinations by comparing its context and prevalence with other domains in oncology. National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) self-assessments and sample questions for the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Steps 1-3 and NBME clinical science shelf examinations were accessed (n = 3878). Questions were inductively analyzed for content pertaining to oncology and treatment modalities of RT, systemic therapy (ST), and surgical intervention (SI). Questions were coded using USMLE Physician Tasks/Competencies and thematic analysis. Descriptive statistics and analyses using the Kruskal-Wallis test are reported. A total of 337 questions (8.6%) within the USMLE and shelf exams included oncology content, with 101 questions (2.6%) referencing at least one cancer treatment modality (n = 35 RT, 45 ST, 57 SI). Treatment questions were more common on USMLE Step 2 CK (n = 35/101, 32%) compared to Step 1 (n = 23/101, 23%) and Step 3 (n = 8/101, 8%) (p < 0.001). RT was significantly less likely to be the correct answer (2/35, 6%) compared to ST (4/45, 9%) and SI (18/57, 32%) (p = 0.003). Therapeutic oncology questions are uncommon on the examination material, with an under-representation of radiation-related content, and contextual bias favoring surgical approaches. We advocate for greater RO involvement in the content creation of such examinations to help trainees better understand multidisciplinary cancer care.

Evaluation of a Radiation Oncology Microclerkship as a Component of Medical Student Education

Compared to most oncologic subspecialties, radiation oncology (RO) lacks a natural pathway for incorporation into the clinical clerkships, and few students ever complete a formal rotation in RO. The feasibility, and perceived value, of a 1-day "microclerkship" exposure in RO during other related clerkships was evaluated in this study. At a single institution, the RO clerkship director partnered with clerkship directors in medical oncology, palliative care, and radiology so that every 3rd or 4th year student would spend 1 day in RO during those clerkships. Afterwards, students completed an electronic survey containing multiple choice and 5-point Likert-type questions describing their experience. Descriptive statistics are reported. Ninety-seven students completed the RO microclerkship over 2 years, and 81 completed the survey (response rate 84%). Only 8 students (10%) had ever been in a RO department previously. During the microclerkship, 73 students (90%) saw at least one new patient consultation; 77 (95%) were involved in contouring or treatment planning; 76 (94%) saw treatment delivery; and 38 (47%) saw a brachytherapy procedure. Seventy-nine students (98%) felt that the microclerkship was at least moderately valuable (mean Likert-type rating 4.01, SD 0.73). Forty students (49%) were either somewhat or much more interested in participating in a longer (2-4 week) rotation in radiation oncology (mean Likert-type rating 3.59, SD 0.83). This study demonstrated the feasibility of incorporating a 1-day RO microclerkship into other related elective clerkships. Students viewed the experience favorably and found it valuable in their education.

Adult Hospitalists' Knowledge of Radiation Oncology in an Independent Nonacademic Healthcare System in Albuquerque, New Mexico

Radiation oncology (RO) plays a crucial role in cancer care; cancer patients often undergo their initial diagnostic study by general physicians. However, studies have shown that most physicians are uncomfortable referring cancer patients to radiation therapy (RT). To assess the knowledge of RO among non-oncology physicians, we sent invitations to complete an online survey that required the responders to self-rate their understanding of RT and objective assessment. The survey was targeted at hospitalists and primary care physicians. Forty physicians responded to the survey, and 89.7% practiced primarily as hospitalists, with 67% being Internal Medicine graduates. Fifty percent of physicians have referred patients to RO before, although more than 90% have not done additional CME (continuing medical education) in Oncology. More than 50% of recent graduates (one to five years post-residency) self-rated themselves as "not knowledgeable" when it comes referral process to RO as well as general knowledge regarding RT. Factors, such as "type of cancer," "patients' wishes," and "life expectancy," are most cited as factors influencing the decision for a referral.

Pilot Study Demonstrating the Value of Interdisciplinary Education on the Integration of Radiation Therapy in Lung Cancer Management

This study aimed to understand baseline knowledge of basic principles of radiation therapy for lung cancer among medical oncology, thoracic surgery, and pulmonology trainees and practicing physicians and also assess whether a didactic lecture will improve objective knowledge and perceived comfort level in making appropriate referrals to radiation oncology (RO). Radiation oncologists at 8 academic institutions offered a presentation covering indications, logistics, efficacy, and toxicity of thoracic radiation. Participants completed a survey to assess their prior exposures to RO and perceived value of the lecture, and objective knowledge gained based on pre/post-lecture questions. Among 121 attendees, 76 completed the pre-test, and 25 the post-test (response rates 62.8% and 20.7%, respectively). Fifty-seven (75.0%) had never previously experienced a RO didactic about lung cancer, 62 (81.6%) had never seen a linear accelerator, and 65 (85.5%) had never rotated in a RO department. The mean pre-test score was 53.5% (SD 17.6%), with a trend (p = 0.066) towards thoracic surgeons (61.5%) performing better than medical oncologists (55.5%) or pulmonologists (48.3%). Level of training (p = 0.130), and prior RO exposures (p = 0.240), did not significantly impact pre-test scores. The mean post-test score of 75.1% (SD 3.6%) was significantly higher than mean pre-test score (p < 0.001). After the lecture, 25 participants (100%) felt more knowledgeable about RO, and 24 (96%) felt more comfortable making appropriate referrals to RO. A didactic lecture about RO for trainees and physicians who treat lung cancer at 8 academic institutions was feasible, filled a gap in exposure, and improved knowledge.

Augmented Package of Palliative Care for Women With Cervical Cancer: Responding to Refractory Suffering

The essential package of palliative care for cervical cancer (EPPCCC), described elsewhere, is designed to be safe and effective for preventing and relieving most suffering associated with cervical cancer and universally accessible. However, it appears that women with cervical cancer, more frequently than patients with other cancers, experience various types of suffering that are refractory to basic palliative care such as what can be provided with the EPPCCC. In particular, relief of refractory pain, vomiting because of bowel obstruction, bleeding, and psychosocial suffering may require additional expertise, medicines, or equipment. Therefore, we convened a group of experienced experts in all aspects of care for women with cervical cancer, and from countries of all income levels, to create an augmented package of palliative care for cervical cancer with which even suffering refractory to the EPPCCC often can be relieved. The package consists of medicines, radiotherapy, surgical procedures, and psycho-oncologic therapies that require advanced or specialized training. Each item in this package should be made accessible whenever the necessary resources and expertise are available.

Palliative Radiotherapy Within the Veterans Health Administration: Barriers to Referral and Timeliness of Treatment

PURPOSE

Most Veterans Health Administration hospitals do not have radiation oncology (RO) departments on-site. The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of on-site RO on referral patterns and timeliness of palliative radiation therapy (PRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey was sent to medical directors at 149 Veterans Health Administration centers. Questions evaluated frequency of referral for PRT, timeliness of RO consults and treatment, and barriers to referral for PRT. Chi-square analysis was used to evaluate differences between centers that have on-site RO and centers that refer to outside facilities.

RESULTS

Of 108 respondents, 33 (31%) have on-site RO. Chi-square analysis revealed that RO consult within 1 week is more likely at centers with on-site RO (68% v 31%; P = .01). Centers with on-site RO more frequently deliver PRT for spinal cord compression within 24 hours (94% v 70%; P = .01). Those without on-site RO were more likely to want increased radiation oncologist involvement (64% v 26%; P < .001). Barriers to referral for PRT included patient ability to travel (81%), patient noncompliance (31%), delays in consult and/or treatment (31%), difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist (14%), and concern regarding excessive number of treatments (13%). Respondents with on-site RO less frequently reported delays in consult and/or treatment (6% v 41%; P < .0001) and difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist (0% v 20%; P = .0056) as barriers.

CONCLUSION

Respondents with on-site RO reported improved communication with radiation oncologists and more timely consultation and treatment initiation. Methods to improve timeliness of PRT for veterans at centers without on-site RO should be considered.

Non-oncologist Physician Knowledge of Radiation Therapy at an Urban Community Hospital

Radiation therapy (RT) is a crucial part of cancer care, but previous work suggests that many non-radiation oncologist physicians are uncomfortable referring for RT. To evaluate training and understanding of RT, the authors sent invitations to complete an online questionnaire to all physicians at a community hospital in Bronx, NY, which asked about oncology training and self-rated and objective knowledge of RT. Out of 247 invited participants, 87 responded (35%). Among responders, 19 were attending physicians (22%) and 66 (76%) were residents. Seventy-two percent of respondents reported caring for > 5 cancer patients in the past month, but 54% reported never referring patients for RT. Sixty-nine percent of respondents stated they received no radiation oncology training in medical school, and 36% reported no general oncology training. Approximately half believed themselves to be "somewhat knowledgeable" about RT indications (48%), benefits (53%), and side effects (55%). Objective assessment mean score was 6.2/12 (median 7) for all respondents; Respondents with internal medicine specialization scored higher than others (mean 7.7 vs 3.5; p < 0.01). Scores did not differ between attending and resident physicians, resident post-graduate levels, or receiving oncology training in medical school. The factors most commonly cited as affecting RT referral decisions were type of cancer, patient wishes, family wishes, poor functional status, and life expectancy. Many physicians are unaware of RT effectiveness or indications, which may affect referral patterns. Previous oncology training was not associated with higher knowledge scores.

Palliative Care Physicians and Palliative Radiotherapy, Knowledge and Barriers for Referring: A Cross-sectional Study

CONTEXT

Palliative radiotherapy is effective in the management of symptoms resulting from advanced cancer. However, it remains underutilized. In developed countries, many factors have been linked to this phenomenon but data in developing and low-income countries, particularly in Latin America, are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a cross-sectional survey to explore palliative care physicians' knowledge of palliative radiotherapy and to investigate possible factors that limit patient referral.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional survey. An online questionnaire was sent to palliative care physicians (n = 170) registered in the Chilean Medical Society of Palliative Care directory.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 58.8%. Nearly all respondents (98%) considered radiotherapy to be a useful treatment. Less than half the respondents (43%) had good knowledge of palliative radiotherapy. Knowledge was correlated with self-reported knowledge (P = 0.015), discussing cases with radiation oncologist (P = 0.001), and having attended educational events on palliative radiotherapy (P = 0.001). Patient reluctance, poor performance status, and family reluctance were identified as major barriers to the use of palliative radiotherapy. Physicians from cities other than the capital were more likely to be concerned about barriers such as distance to radiotherapy facilities (P = 0.01), the duration of the referral process (P = 0.01), and the lack of a radiation oncologist available for discussing cases (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Several barriers affect referral to palliative radiotherapy. Some barriers seem to be more significant for physicians practicing in cities far from cancer centers. Physicians' knowledge is less than optimal and has been identified as a barrier to referral. Educational interventions and broadening the availability of cancer treatment resources are needed to improve the referral process.

Palliative radiotherapy: what do nurses know?

BACKGROUND

palliative radiotherapy can improve quality of life for patients who are symptomatic of advanced cancers. However, this treatment modality is underused and is often mistimed, which negates its potential benefit.

AIM

the aim of this study was to assess nursing knowledge of palliative radiotherapy in the context of caring for patients with a cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

a quantitative method of research was employed using a questionnaire to assess palliative radiotherapy knowledge among a purposive sample of 162 oncology and palliative care nurses.

FINDINGS

the response rate was 48.14%. More than half of respondents reported their knowledge of radiotherapy as insufficient for their practice and almost all agreed they would benefit from more education.

CONCLUSION

nurses require more training to identify when palliative radiotherapy would be an effective symptom control option; specific areas of focus for developing future radiotherapy educational programmes are highlighted.

A targeted needs assessment to improve referral patterns for palliative radiation therapy

Radiation therapy (RT) can effectively palliate a variety of symptoms in patients with metastatic cancer, using relatively low doses that infrequently cause major side effects. However, palliative radiation is often underutilized and sub-optimally implemented. In this study, we surveyed the Society of Palliative Radiation Oncology (SPRO) membership to identify barriers to appropriate referral for palliative RT that they encounter in their practice, and identify specific groups of physicians who radiation oncologists believed would benefit most from further education on when to refer patients. A total of 28 radiation oncologists responded to the survey with a response rate of 20.5%. On average, participants felt that referrals for palliative RT were inappropriately delayed 46.5% [standard deviation (STD) 20.2%] of the time. The most common barrier to referral for medical oncologists was thought to be potential interference with systemic therapy (33%); for primary care physicians and surgeons it was a lack of knowledge about the benefit (42%), and for palliative care physicians it was concern for patient convenience (25%). For brain metastases and spinal cord compression radiation oncology was felt to be part of the initial referral sequence more than 50% of the time, but less so for thoracic airway obstruction/bleeding (38%), esophageal obstruction (16%), or urinary obstruction/bleeding (8%), where another subspecialist was more often consulted first. Primary care, geriatric medicine, and emergency medicine were considered among the least knowledgeable specialties about palliative radiation. These hypothesis-generating findings can guide approaches to improve referral patterns for this important aspect of supportive care.

Collaborating with the Community: Improving Patient Access to Palliative Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

Palliative radiation therapy (PRT) has an essential role in cancer symptom control but is underutilized in Ontario. This initiative aimed to implement an educational outreach intervention to improve knowledge of and access to PRT among interprofessional palliative health care teams across an Ontario Local Health Integration Network.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A needs assessment was completed from June to September 2018 with interprofessional palliative health care teams. Participants completed a survey to identify perceived opportunities, barriers, and enablers to recommending or referring patients for PRT. Thematic analysis informed content of the educational outreach intervention and included how to access PRT, common indications, case studies, and side-effect management after completing PRT. The educational outreach intervention was completed from October 2018 to January 2019. Participants completed a survey, and results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The number of patients who received PRT was determined by cross-referencing the regional database with the radiation oncology information system.

RESULTS

Although 22.9% of participants had previously recommended or referred patients, 96.2% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they are likely to recommend or refer patients for PRT after the educational outreach intervention (n = 131). An increase was observed in the number of patients receiving PRT from the community during the intervention period.

CONCLUSIONS

The educational outreach intervention improved knowledge and the likelihood of interprofessional palliative health care teams providing access to PRT for patients in the community. More patients now receive PRT, conveying improved symptom control and quality of life.

Palliative Radiotherapy Education for Hospice and Palliative Medicine Fellows: A National Needs Assessment

Background: Insufficient knowledge of palliative radiotherapy (PRT) among hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) physicians is thought to be a barrier to the provision of high-quality palliative care. Objective: To assess the need for PRT education in HPM fellowship. Design: A cross-sectional survey of HPM fellows was conducted in June 2018. Setting/Subjects: The survey was distributed to accredited HPM fellowship programs in the United States for distribution to enrolled fellows; 114 fellows responded to the survey. Results: Nearly all respondents agreed that the principles of PRT should be taught in HPM fellowship, yet 51% had received no PRT education and 35% had received only one or two hours. Only 25% of respondents rated their working knowledge of PRT as sufficient, 40% felt confident in identifying radiation oncology emergencies or managing radiotherapy side effects, and 52% felt confident in assessing which patients to refer for radiotherapy. More than 75% agreed that were they more knowledgeable about PRT, they would be more likely to consider referral to radiation oncology, to collaborate with radiation oncologists, and to advocate for a short course of treatment based on a patient's prognosis or goals or care. Fellows who received PRT education in fellowship had significantly greater knowledge of and more favorable attitudes toward the use of radiotherapy. This difference was the greatest among fellows who had received at least five hours of PRT education. Conclusion: There is a need for PRT education in HPM fellowship. Efforts to address this need may lead to more appropriate utilization of PRT for patients with advanced cancer.

The Impact of a Radiation Oncologist led Oncology Curriculum on Medical Student Knowledge

Medical students at our institution all take a pre-clinical oncology course as well as a clinical radiation oncology didactic session during their clinical curriculum. The objective of this analysis is to demonstrate the impact of the radiation oncology didactic on medical student knowledge of core oncology concepts. All students received a standardized didactic lecture introducing students to core concepts of general oncology and radiation. We administered an 18-question pretest and a posttest examining student knowledge between 2012 and 2015. Changes in student responses between pre-test and post-tests were analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of the didactic session. Over the course of three years, 319 (64.4%) of 495 students who completed the Radiology block completed both the pre-test and post-test. The average student test grade improved from 62.0% on the pretest to 69.6% on the posttest (p < 0.001). By category, students increased their score from 81.4% to 89.8% (p < 0.001) in general oncology, from 59.9% to 69.9% (p < 0.001) in breast oncology, from 43.0% to 51.0% (p < 0.001) in prostate oncology, and from 71.3% to 75.7% (p = 0.003) in radiation oncology. Students showed increases in knowledge across general oncology, prostate oncology, breast oncology, and radiation oncology.

Systematic review of general practice end-of-life symptom control

Background

End of life care (EoLC) is a fundamental role of general practice, which will become more important as the population ages. It is essential that general practice’s role and performance of at the end of life is understood in order to maximise the skills of the entire workforce.

Objective

To provide a comprehensive description of the role and performance of general practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs) in EoLC symptom control.

Method

Systematic literature review of papers from 2000 to 2017 were sought from Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane databases.

Results

From 6209 journal articles, 46 papers reported GP performance in symptom management. There was no reference to the performance of GPNs in any paper identified. Most GPs expressed confidence in identifying EoLC symptoms. However, they reported lack of confidence in providing EoLC at the beginning of their careers, and improvements with time in practice. They perceived emotional support as being the most important aspect of EoLC that they provide, but there were barriers to its provision. GPs felt most comfortable treating pain, and least confident with dyspnoea and depression. Observed pain management was sometimes not optimal. More formal training, particularly in the use of opioids was considered important to improve management of both pain and dyspnoea.

Conclusions

It is essential that GPs receive regular education and training, and exposure to EoLC from an early stage in their careers to ensure skill and confidence. Research into the role of GPNs in symptom control needs to occur.

An interactive contouring module improves engagement and interest in radiation oncology among preclinical medical students: Results of a randomized trial

PURPOSE

Studies have shown significant gaps in knowledge of radiation therapy among medical students and primary care providers. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of an interactive contouring module on knowledge and interest in radiation oncology among preclinical medical students.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Second-year medical students at the University of California, San Diego were randomized to participate in an interactive contouring exercise or watch a traditional didactic lecture on radiation oncology. Participants completed knowledge tests and surveys at baseline, immediately following the exercise, and 3 months later. Statistical analysis included Wilcoxon signed-rank test for pre- and posttest comparisons and Wilcoxon rank sum test for comparison between groups.

RESULTS

Forty-three medical students participated in the trial (21 in the didactic group; 22 in the contouring group). Students completing the contouring module demonstrated similar overall knowledge improvement compared with the traditional didactic group (+8.6% vs +6.6%, not significant) but endorsed greater engagement on a 5-point Likert-type scale (3.10 vs 3.76, P = .02). At 3-month follow-up, there was a nonsignificant trend toward improved overall knowledge in the contouring group (43% vs 51%, P = .10), with a significance difference in a subset of questions on knowledge of the process of radiation therapy as well as side effects (51% vs 75%, P = .002). Students in the contouring group demonstrated more interest in pursuing a clinical radiation oncology rotation (2.52 vs 3.27, P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of an interactive contouring module was an effective method to teach preclinical medical students about radiation oncology, with no significant difference in knowledge gained compared with a traditional didactic lecture; however, higher engagement among students completing the contouring module led to improved retention of knowledge of radiation side effects and greater interest in radiation oncology. These data suggest a potential benefit of integrating an interactive radiation oncology module into the preclinical medical school curriculum.

What is the evidence on interventions to manage referral from primary to specialist non-emergency care? A systematic review and logic model synthesis

Background

Demand management describes any method used to monitor, direct or regulate patient referrals. Several strategies have been developed to manage the referral of patients to secondary care, with interventions targeting primary care, specialist services, or infrastructure.

Objective

This research aimed to conduct an inclusive systematic review and logic model synthesis in order to better understand factors impacting on the effectiveness of interventions targeting referral between primary and secondary medical health care.

Design

The approach combined systematic review with logic modelling synthesis techniques to develop an evidence-based framework of factors influencing the pathway between interventions and system-wide changes.

Setting

Primary health care.

Main outcome measures

Referral from primary to secondary care.

Review methods

Systematic searches were undertaken to identify recent, relevant studies. Quality of individual studies was appraised, with consideration of overall strength of evidence. A narrative synthesis and logic model summary of the data was completed.

Results

From a database of 8327 unique papers, 290 were included in the review. The intervention studies were grouped into four categories of education interventions (n = 50); process change interventions (n = 49); system change interventions (n = 38); and patient-focused interventions (n = 3). Effectiveness was assessed variously in these papers; however, there was a gap regarding the mechanisms whereby these interventions lead to demand management impacts. The findings suggest that, although individual-level interventions may be popular, the stronger evidence relates only to peer-review and feedback interventions. Process change interventions appeared to be more effective when the change resulted in the specialist being provided with more or better quality information about the patient. System changes including the community provision of specialist services by general practitioners, outreach provision by specialists and the return of inappropriate referrals appeared to have evidence of effect. The pathway whereby interventions might lead to service-wide impact was complex, with multiple factors potentially acting as barriers or facilitators to the change process. Factors related, first, to the doctor (including knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, and previous experiences of a service), second, to the patient (including condition and social factors) and, third, to the influence of the doctor–patient relationship. We also identified a number of potentially influential factors at a local level, such as perceived waiting times and the availability of a specialist. These elements are key factors in the pathway between an intervention and intended demand management outcomes influencing both applicability and effectiveness.

Conclusions

The findings highlight the complexity of the referral process and multiple elements that will impact on intervention outcomes and applicability to a local area. Any interventions seeking to change referral practice need to address factors relating to the individual practitioner, the patient and also the situation in which the referral is taking place. These conclusions apply especially to referral management in a UK context where this whole range of factors/issues lies well within the remit of the NHS. This work highlights that intermediate outcomes are important in the referral pathway. It is recommended that researchers include measure of these intermediate outcomes in their evaluation of intervention effectiveness in order to determine where blocks to or facilitators of system-wide impact may be occurring.

Study registration

The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004037.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.