COVID-19, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was declared a global pandemic in March 2020. It has impacted the world medically, financially, politically and socially, with countries such as China and Italy adopting a full lockdown of their cities to mitigate the transmission. The current mortality rate is 5.4%, with 1 056 159 people infected worldwide. The disease is reminiscent of SARS in 2002, from which the healthcare system of Singapore has garnered many lessons and applied them in the current climate. As a result of the high transmissibility of the virus, hospitals in Singapore have reduced clinic loads and elective treatments to halt propagation of the virus and also to allow redistribution of healthcare workforce to the frontline. Cancer patients, who are often immunocompromised, are at risk of contracting the disease and becoming seriously ill. At the same time, delaying treatment such as radiotherapy in cancer patients can be detrimental. Here, we describe our experience as a large radiation oncology department in Singapore, including the challenges we encountered and how we managed our patient flow.
BackgroundWith an aging population and an increasing number of elderly patients with cancer, it is essential for us to understand how cancer physicians approach the management and treatment of elderly cancer patients as well as their methods of cancer diagnosis disclosure to older versus younger patients in Singapore, where routine geriatric oncology service is not available.Methods57 cancer physicians who are currently practicing in Singapore participated in a written questionnaire survey on attitudes towards management of the elderly cancer patient, which included 2 hypothetical clinical scenarios on treatment choices for a fit elderly patient versus that for a younger patient.ResultsThe participants comprised of 68% medical oncologists, 18% radiation oncologists, and 14% haematologists. Most physicians (53%) listed performance status (PS) as the top single factor affecting their treatment decision, followed by cancer type (23%) and patient’s decision (11%). The top 5 factors were PS (95%), co-morbidities (75%), cancer stage (75%), cancer type (75%), patient’s decision (53%), and age (51%). 72% of physicians were less likely to treat a fit but older patient aggressively; 53% and 79% opted for less intensive treatments for older patients in two clinical scenarios of lymphoma and early breast cancer, respectively. 37% of physicians acknowledged that elderly cancer patients were generally under-treated.Only 9% of physicians chose to disclose cancer diagnosis directly to the older patient compared to 61% of physicians to a younger patient, citing family preference as the main reason. Most participants (61%) have never engaged a geriatrician’s help in treatment decisions, although the majority (90%) would welcome the introduction of a geriatric oncology programme.ConclusionsAdvanced patient age has a significant impact on the cancer physician’s treatment decision-making process in Singapore. Many physicians still accede to family members’ request and practice non-disclosure of cancer diagnosis to geriatric patients, which may pose as a hurdle to making an informed decision regarding management for the geriatric cancer patients. Having a formal geriatric oncology programme in Singapore could potentially help to optimize the management of geriatric oncology patients.
Greater patient involvement in health decision-making requires exchange of information between the patient and the healthcare professionals. Decisions regarding healthcare at the end of life include consideration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The stated objectives of this study were to determine how often language around concepts of resuscitation is used in the community by examination of the English language corpora (ELC); to explore the understanding of the same language by a group of older hospital patients; and to determine the patients' knowledge of the process and success of CPR, as well as the sources of their information. Medical inpatients aged 75 years and older were surveyed to this end in the setting of a tertiary university teaching hospital. Interrogation of the Australian, British and American English Corpora was accomplished by a linguist, and a questionnaire and semi-structured interview were administered to ascertain patient knowledge. We demonstrated that although medical inpatients have some familiarity with terms relating to resuscitation, there is a lack of understanding of the context, process and outcomes of CPR. The predominant sources of information were television and print media. Examination of the ELC revealed a paucity of the use of terms related to resuscitation. This finding indicates that physicians have a duty of care to determine patients' understanding around resuscitation language, and terms used, in discussions of their preferences before assuming their engagement in shared decision-making. More open public discussion around death and resuscitation would increase the general knowledge of the population and would provide a better foundation for the discussions in times of need.
Despite their proven efficacy and safety, opioid and sedative use for palliation in patients afflicted with cancer in Singapore have been shown to be a fraction of that in other countries. This paper explores the various psychosocial and system-related factors that appear to propagate this conservative approach to care in what is largely a western-influenced care practice. A search for publications relating to sedative and opioid usage in Asia was performed on PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, World Health Organization, and Singapore's government agency websites using search terms such as “opioids,” “sedatives,” “palliation,” “end-of-life-care,” “pain management,” “palliative care,” “cancer pain,” “Asia,” “Singapore,” and “morphine.” Findings were classified into three broad groups – system-related, physician-related, and patient-related factors. A cautious medico-legal climate, shortage of physicians trained in palliative care, and lack of instruments for symptom assessment of patients at the end of life contribute to system-related barriers. Physician-related barriers include delayed access to palliative care due to late referrals, knowledge deficits in non-palliative medicine physicians, and sub-optimal care provided by palliative physicians. Patients' under-reporting of symptoms and fear of addiction, tolerance, and side effects of opioids and sedatives may lead to conservative opioid use in palliative care as well. System-related, physician-related, and patient-related factors play crucial roles in steering the management of palliative patients. Addressing and increasing the awareness of these factors may help ensure patients receive adequate relief and control of distressing symptoms.
34 Background: Accessible Cancer Care to Enable Support for Cancer Survivors (ACCESS) is a multidisciplinary survivorship care model launched at the National Cancer Centre Singapore, the largest ambulatory cancer centre serving 70% of adult cancer patients in the public sector. ACCESS employs routine distress screening to triage patients with varying care needs and complexities. This study aims to examine the feasibility, delivery, and acceptance of ACCESS in providing appropriate service referrals to cancer patients in clinical settings. Methods: As part of an ongoing evaluation, we evaluated ACCESS for a 6-month implementation period between September 2019 and February 2020. Feasibility was assessed by proportions of (1) eligible breast and gynecological cancer patients who completed the locally adapted Distress Thermometer (DT) screening tool, (2) highly distressed patients, and (3) highly distressed patients requiring multidisciplinary meetings (MDM). Delivery was characterized by the mode and number of supportive care team (SCT) reviews required. Acceptance rates of SCT reviews by distressed patients and the uptake rate of service referrals recommended by the SCT were tabulated. Results: ACCESS screened 1074/1471 (73.0%) of all eligible patients within the 6-month period and identified 239/1074 (22.3%) as highly distressed for follow-up with the SCT. Eventually, 84.5% agreed to SCT review, with approximately one-fourth (26.7%) requiring MDM reviews. The majority (62.4%) of all distressed patients were identified at their first DT completion, whereas 19.8% and 7.4% were identified at their second and third completions respectively. The most common modes of follow-up were phone reviews (49.9%) and face-to-face in clinic waiting areas (48.6%). The SCT recommended 80 referrals to distressed patients for the following services: psychosocial (27.2%), cancer rehabilitation (5.9%), and home hospice (5.0%). The acceptance rates of the referrals for psychosocial, rehabilitation, and hospice services were 43.6%, 75.0%, and 80.0% respectively. Conclusions: ACCESS is a feasible model for triaging Asian cancer patients based on distress levels, and identifying complex patients requiring care personalization through MDM. The poorer acceptance rate of psychosocial services highlights patients’ preference for interventions targeting physical than psychosocial issues. Future studies should explore whether the uptake of psychosocial services is higher in the post-COVID era.
Background: Persons with advanced cancer may participate in Phase 1 clinical trials – first-in-human trials that are conducted with the main objectives of safety and dosing. The motivations for participation are not well understood and may include hope for cure. Aim: To explore the perspectives of persons with advanced cancer in order to understand the motivations for participating in Phase 1 clinical trials, experiences while being on trial and views on palliative care provision. Design: Qualitative study with a constructivist stance, using thematic analysis based upon the grounded theory approach. Setting/participants: 20 persons with advanced cancer who were participating in a Phase 1 clinical trial. Results: Many participants described how Phase 1 clinical trial participation was their last hope, as they were cognisant of their advanced disease. Information-seeking needs differed – some needed comprehensive information while others relied on the doctor’s recommendation. Participants experienced varied negative and positive physical and psycho-emotional concerns, and needed to draw on multiple sources of support such as family, friends and healthcare professionals. Some could list potential benefits of palliative care but felt they did not require it yet. The overarching theme was hope and positive thinking as a way of coping. Conclusions: The concepts of hope as a way of coping and the supportive presence of healthcare professionals could be weaved into a future model of palliative care to improve the illness journey for patients considering Phase 1 clinical trial participation and other persons with advanced cancer.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.