Training non-physicians to do endoscopy: Feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers in women and men worldwide. Training non-physicians including nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to perform endoscopy can provide the opportunity to expand access to CRC screening as demand for endoscopic procedures continues to grow. A formal program, incorporating didactic instruction and hands-on practice in addition to oversight, is required to train non-physicians to perform endoscopy as safely and effectively as physicians. Additionally, the context in which the non-physician endoscopy program is organized will dictate key program characteristics including remuneration, participant recruitment and professional and legal considerations. This review explores the evidence in support of non-physician based endoscopy, potential challenges in implementing non-physician endoscopy and requirements for a high-quality program to support training and implementation.

Non-physician's challenges in sexual and reproductive health care provision for women of reproductive age with cancer: a scoping review of barriers and facilitators

PURPOSE

The American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice guidelines recommend that non-physicians such as nurses, social workers, and psychologists should be prepared to discuss fertility and sexual concerns with patients. However, literature showed that the utilization rate of sexual and reproductive care for women with cancer remained low. We conducted a scoping review to describe non-physicians' roles, barriers, and facilitators providing sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care to women of reproductive age with cancer.

METHODS

We searched six databases for articles that met the following criteria: (1) English language; (2) original research; (3) non-physician providers; (4) women with cancer under age 50. We categorized barriers and facilitators at the system-, individual-, and clinical encounter-levels from providers' and patients' perspectives.

RESULTS

We included 27 studies from 3451 retrieved articles. The majority of studies have a focus on fertility preservation or sexuality (n = 25). At the system level, the main barriers for non-physicians were lack of SRH care guidelines and collaborating experts. Concerns for patients included socioeconomic and geographic constraints in obtaining care. At the encounter level, providers and patients lacked experience discussing SRH. At the individual level, providers' lack of knowledge in SRH treatment options and interprofessional collaboration and patients' lack of awareness about treatment effects hindered SRH discussions. Facilitators include the availability of SRH programs and specialists, and rapport between providers and patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Supporting non-physicians to provide SRH services to women with cancer requires investment in clinical guidelines, interprofessional collaboration, and training in patient communication.