Consumers’ and professionals’ perceptions of a breast cancer review clinic

McCaughan, Eilís; McSorley, Oonagh

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04404.x

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…17 In addition, some ROs have stated that they do not deal with the non-medical concerns of patients not only because of time restraints but also because of the lack of relevance to a "medical" review; with some even considering themselves as not being the appropriate professional to deal with these issues. 16 The focus of ROs on the medical side of treatment reviews seems misdirected particularly in the assessment of patients undergoing treatments to areas such as the breast, which require low levels of medical intervention while the patient still requires considerable psychosocial support. 18 There is a perception among RTs that patients view the ROs as having less time and are less empathetic and therefore patients are likely to communicate more openly with RTs than a RO in a treatment review setting.…”

Section: Benefits To the Patientmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 The impact of this on patients is that many are reluctant to seek support from the RO for "non-medical" issues because they perceive these concerns to be inappropriate or of little significance to bring up in a treatment review with an RO who may have very limited time to deal with these concerns. 13,16 Patients then attempt to cope with these concerns by themselves and do not seek further support from other cancer care professionals. 16 Given the suggested lack of comprehensive treatment review by ROs due to patient perceptions, time limitations and a limited need in some cases for medical intervention, another health professional such as an RT may be better suited to this role.…”

Section: Benefits To the Patientmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13,16 Patients then attempt to cope with these concerns by themselves and do not seek further support from other cancer care professionals. 16 Given the suggested lack of comprehensive treatment review by ROs due to patient perceptions, time limitations and a limited need in some cases for medical intervention, another health professional such as an RT may be better suited to this role.…”

Section: Benefits To the Patientmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patients raised concerns regarding the appropriateness of nurses leading follow-up clinics for breast treatments as they were unsure of the nurses' exact role, abilities and training and this resulted in patients not feeling comfortable. 16 As nurses and RTs have different training backgrounds they may be perceived differently by patients and this potentially makes RTs more suitable as treatment reviewers if the patient feels they have more appropriate knowledge and skills. 11 It is therefore necessary that before these roles are implemented, clear boundaries of the scope of practice are defined for all parties involved.…”

Section: Limitations Of Rts As Patient Reviewersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18 This is particularly encouraging when it is compared to patients feeling unable to discuss all areas of their care and feeling that they have limited time when being reviewed by the RO. 2,13,16,17 The results of RT-led treatment reviews are not only beneficial for patients, but also for individual RTs and for role extension in the profession. RTs found that being involved in advanced practice by undertaking treatment reviews resulted in increased involvement in patient care, higher levels of autonomy, increased diversity involved with the role and more lateral movement within the RT profession.…”

Section: Evidence Basedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Radiation therapist‐led weekly patient treatment reviews

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this discussion article is to explore the implementation of radiation therapist‐led treatment reviews as a form of advanced practice for radiation therapists in Australia. The feasibility of such a role, the impact on cancer care services and implementation requirements to enable the position to be implemented effectively in an Australian environment are explored. Current practice involving weekly patient treatment reviews and cases where health professionals other than radiation oncologists have undertaken this role will be evaluated. Recommendations on its implementation in an Australian environment are also given. An extensive literature review was conducted through the databases ScienceDirect, Medline and CINAHL. Searches were carried out using the following keywords; “radi*” and “prescribing”, “radi*” and “patient review” and “radi*” and “role development”. Abstracts of the yielded results were appraised and those that matched criteria for analysis underwent critical review for inclusion in the discussion. Although steps have been taken to implement the advanced practice role of a treatment review radiation therapist in Australia, little has been done to formalise the role. It is evident from the international literature that the radiation therapist‐led reviewer role has resulted in benefits to patients, medical specialists and therapists. This advanced practice role has the potential to increase radiation therapist retention and recruitment. Implementation of this role in the Australian environment would be advantageous; however criteria outlining the scope of practice and remuneration packages need to be established to facilitate the synthesis of this role in a clinical environment.

show abstract

Section: Benefits To the Patientmentioning

confidence: 99%