Improving the Quality of Care for Cancer Patients through Oncological Second Opinions in a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Feasibility of Patient-Initiated Second Opinions through a Health-Insurance Service Point.
gastrointestinal cancer
gynecologic cancer
sarcoma
second medical opinion
urologic cancer
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Oct 2023
25 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
04
09
2023
revised:
17
10
2023
accepted:
19
10
2023
medline:
14
11
2023
pubmed:
14
11
2023
entrez:
14
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of care, cancer patients can obtain a second medical opinion on their treatment. Validation of the diagnostic procedure (e.g., imaging), diagnosis, and treatment recommendation allows oncological therapy to be applied in a more targeted way, optimizing interdisciplinary care. This study describes patients who received second opinions at the Comprehensive Cancer Center for Erlangen-Nuremberg metropolitan area in Germany over a 6-year period, as well as the amount of time spent on second-opinion counseling. This prospective, descriptive, single-center observational study included 584 male and female cancer patients undergoing gynecological, urologic, or general surgery who sought a second medical opinion. The extent to which the first opinion complied with standard guidelines was assessed solely descriptively. The first opinion was in accordance with the guidelines and complete in 54.5% of the patients, and guideline compliant but incomplete in 13.2%. The median time taken to form a second opinion was 225 min, and the cancer information service was contacted by patients an average of eight times. The initial opinion was guideline compliant and complete in every second case. Without a second opinion, the remaining patients would have been denied a guideline-compliant treatment recommendation. Obtaining a second opinion gives patients an opportunity to receive a guideline-compliant treatment recommendation and enables them to benefit from newer, individualized therapeutic approaches in clinical trials. Establishing patient-initiated second opinions via central contact points appears to be a feasible option for improving guideline compliance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of care, cancer patients can obtain a second medical opinion on their treatment. Validation of the diagnostic procedure (e.g., imaging), diagnosis, and treatment recommendation allows oncological therapy to be applied in a more targeted way, optimizing interdisciplinary care. This study describes patients who received second opinions at the Comprehensive Cancer Center for Erlangen-Nuremberg metropolitan area in Germany over a 6-year period, as well as the amount of time spent on second-opinion counseling.
METHODS
METHODS
This prospective, descriptive, single-center observational study included 584 male and female cancer patients undergoing gynecological, urologic, or general surgery who sought a second medical opinion. The extent to which the first opinion complied with standard guidelines was assessed solely descriptively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The first opinion was in accordance with the guidelines and complete in 54.5% of the patients, and guideline compliant but incomplete in 13.2%. The median time taken to form a second opinion was 225 min, and the cancer information service was contacted by patients an average of eight times.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The initial opinion was guideline compliant and complete in every second case. Without a second opinion, the remaining patients would have been denied a guideline-compliant treatment recommendation. Obtaining a second opinion gives patients an opportunity to receive a guideline-compliant treatment recommendation and enables them to benefit from newer, individualized therapeutic approaches in clinical trials. Establishing patient-initiated second opinions via central contact points appears to be a feasible option for improving guideline compliance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37958196
pii: diagnostics13213300
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13213300
pmc: PMC10647700
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
ID : "Open Access Publication Funding"
Références
Med J Aust. 2009 Aug 17;191(4):209-12
pubmed: 19705981
Evid Based Nurs. 2005 Jul;8(3):68-72
pubmed: 16021701
J Surg Oncol. 2015 Feb;111(2):192-7
pubmed: 25273328
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2019 Jan 16;8(1):12
pubmed: 30651143
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Oct 05;15:78
pubmed: 26438235
Oncol Res Treat. 2018;41(12):769-773
pubmed: 30458451
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020 May;301(5):1299-1306
pubmed: 32274639
J Clin Pathol. 2014 Nov;67(11):955-60
pubmed: 25053542
JAMA. 2009 Oct 14;302(14):1551-6
pubmed: 19826024
BMJ. 2012 Apr 26;344:e2718
pubmed: 22539013
Breast. 2010 Apr;19(2):120-7
pubmed: 20117932
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2023 Aug 15;83(8):1031-1042
pubmed: 37588259
Patient Educ Couns. 2019 May;102(5):998-1004
pubmed: 30581013
Breast Care (Basel). 2021 Jun;16(3):291-298
pubmed: 34248471
Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2019 Jul;69(7):293-300
pubmed: 30326537
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Sep;68(5):356-376
pubmed: 30277572
JAMA. 2015 Mar 17;313(11):1122-32
pubmed: 25781441
J Oncol Pract. 2015 Sep;11(5):421-3
pubmed: 26384016
BMJ. 2020 Nov 4;371:m4087
pubmed: 33148535
Oncologist. 2017 Oct;22(10):1197-1211
pubmed: 28606972
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2023 Sep 29;120(39):647-654
pubmed: 37583089
Cancer. 2006 Nov 15;107(10):2346-51
pubmed: 16998942
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006 Feb;32(1):108-12
pubmed: 16303280
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Jan;167(1):195-203
pubmed: 28879558
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Jul;22(7):2359-64
pubmed: 25608767
Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Jun;105(3):801-12
pubmed: 17433422