Dataset Information

US Radiation Oncologists (Re)Defined: An American Society for Radiation Oncology Scope of Practice Study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To assess US radiation oncologists' views on practice scope and the ideal role of the radiation oncologist (RO), the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) conducted a scope of practice survey.

Methods and materials

In spring 2019, ASTRO distributed an online survey to 3822 US RO members. The survey generated 984 complete responses (26% response rate) for analysis. Face validity testing confirmed respondents were representative of ASTRO's RO membership.

Results

Nearly all respondents agreed that "ROs should be leaders in oncologic care." Respondents indicated the ideal approach to patient care was to provide "an independent opinion on radiation therapy and other treatment options" (82.5%) or "an independent opinion on radiation therapy but not outside of it" (16.1%), with only 1.4% favoring provision of "radiation therapy at the request of the referring physician" as the ideal approach. Actual practice fully matched the ideal approach in 18.2% of respondents. For the remaining majority, actual practice did not always match the ideal and comprised a mix of approaches that included providing radiation at the referring physician's request 24.0% of the time on average. Reasons for the mismatch included fear of alienating referring physicians and concern for offering an unwelcome opinion. One-fifth of respondents expressed a desire to expand the scope of service though interspecialty politics and insufficient training were potential barriers. Respondents interested in expanding scope of practice were on average earlier in their career (average years in practice 13.3) than those who were not interested (average years in practice 17.2, P < .001). Radiopharmaceuticals administration, medical marijuana and anticancer medications prescribing, and RO inpatient service represented areas of interest for expansion but also knowledge gaps.

Conclusions

These results provide insight regarding US ROs' scope of practice and attitudes on the ideal role of the RO. For most ROs, to provide an independent opinion on treatment options represented the ideal approach to care, but barriers such as concern of alienating referring physicians prevented many from fully adhering to their ideal in practice. Actual practice commonly comprised a mixed approach, including the least favored scenario of delivering radiation at the referring physician's request one-quarter of the time, highlighting the influence of interspecialty politics on practice behavior. Advocacy for open communication and meaningful interdisciplinary collaboration presents an actionable solution toward a more balanced relationship with other specialties as ROs strive to better fulfill the vision of being leaders in oncologic care and being our best for our patients. The study also identified interest in expanding into nontraditional domains that offer opportunities to address unmet needs in the cancer patient's journey and elevate radiation oncology within the increasingly value-based US health care system.

SUBMITTER: Fung CY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7500393 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

US Radiation Oncologists (Re)Defined: An American Society for Radiation Oncology Scope of Practice Study.

Fung Claire Y CY Vapiwala Neha N Mattes Malcolm D MD Mohindra Pranshu P Shah Chirag C Yechieli Raphael R Truong Minh-Tam MT Sanders Tim T Arnone Anna A Royce Trevor J TJ Ennis Ronald D RD

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 20200918 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>To assess US radiation oncologists' views on practice scope and the ideal role of the radiation oncologist (RO), the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) conducted a scope of practice survey.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>In spring 2019, ASTRO distributed an online survey to 3822 US RO members. The survey generated 984 complete responses (26% response rate) for analysis. Face validity testing confirmed respondents were representative of ASTRO's RO membership.<h4>Results ...[more]

PMID: 32956745

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeRadiation oncologists are frequently involved in providing palliative and supportive care (PSC) for patients with advanced cancers through delivery of palliative radiation. Whether they are confident in their ability to assess and initiate treatments for pain, nonpain, and psychosocial distress is unknown. The American Society for Radiation Oncology surveyed its practicing members in the United States on self-assessment of their primary PSC skills and access to continuing medical education on PSC.MethodsWe electronically surveyed 4093 practicing radiation oncologists in the United States. The survey consisted of 16-questions in 5 sections1: demographics,2 PSC training,3 domains of PSC,4 perceived barriers as a radiation oncologist to initiate advanced care planning, and5 discussion of prognosis.ResultsThe survey was e-mailed to 4093 American Society for Radiation Oncology members, and 649 responses were received (response rate 16%). The majority (91%) of radiation oncologists surveyed believe PSC is an important competency for radiation oncologists. Most radiation oncologists reported that they are moderately confident in their ability to assess and manage pain and gastrointestinal symptoms, but less confident in their ability to manage anorexia, anxiety, and depression. Despite areas of decreased confidence, a large number (42%) of radiation oncologists do not receive any additional PSC education beyond their residency training. Lastly, a perceived fear of upsetting referring medical oncologists and lack of clinic time are concerns for radiation oncologists who may want to initiate goals of care/advance care planning discussions with patients and their families.ConclusionRadiation oncologists are more confident in their ability to assess and manage pain than in their ability to manage depression, anxiety, anorexia, and fatigue. There is a need for increasing continuing medical educational efforts in PSC for practicing radiation oncologists, and strengthening PSC training in residency programs.

Project description:PurposeTo provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others for the treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.MethodsAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, gastroenterology, palliative care, and advocacy experts to conduct a systematic review of the literature from April 2004 to June 2015. Outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events.ResultsTwenty-four randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria.RecommendationsA multiphase computed tomography scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed. Baseline performance status and comorbidity profile should be evaluated. Goals of care, patient preferences, treatment response, psychological status, support systems, and symptom burden should guide decisions for treatments. A palliative care referral should occur at first visit. FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin; favorable comorbidity profile) or gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (NAB) -paclitaxel (adequate comorbidity profile) should be offered to patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0 to 1 based on patient preference and support system available. Gemcitabine alone is recommended for patients with ECOG PS 2 or with a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens; the addition of capecitabine or erlotinib may be offered. Patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 3 and poorly controlled comorbid conditions should be offered cancer-directed therapy only on a case-by-case basis; supportive care should be emphasized. For second-line therapy, gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with FOLFIRINOX, an ECOG PS 0 to 1, and a favorable comorbidity profile; fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or nanoliposomal irinotecan should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel, ECOG PS 0 to 1, and favorable comorbidity profile, and gemcitabine or fluorouracil should be offered to patients with either an ECOG PS 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/MetPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

Dataset Information

US Radiation Oncologists (Re)Defined: An American Society for Radiation Oncology Scope of Practice Study.

Purpose

Methods and materials

Results

Conclusions

Publications

US Radiation Oncologists (Re)Defined: An American Society for Radiation Oncology Scope of Practice Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets