Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T17:24:30.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An audit of a radiotherapy review clinic for breast cancer patients: a multi-disciplinary approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2008

J.L. Cameron ,
C.M. Blyth  and
A.S. Kirby
J.L. Cameron*
Affiliation:
Breast Clinical Radiographer Specialist, Edinburgh Cancer Centre, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road, Edinburgh, UK
C.M. Blyth
Affiliation:
Lecturer, Queen Margaret University, Queen Margaret University Drive, Edinburgh, UK
A.S. Kirby
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer, Queen Margaret University, Queen Margaret University Drive, Edinburgh, UK
*
Correspondence to: J.L. Cameron, Edinburgh Cancer Centre, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, UK. E-mail: josie.cameron@luht.scot.nhs.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose: With the advent of multi-disciplinary team working in Oncology practice, this audit was designed to assess patient satisfaction with this approach within an on-treatment review clinic for breast cancer patients. It also aimed to look at conformity of reporting of treatment side effects between different staff groups.

Patients and methods: A questionnaire was distributed to 230 radical breast cancer patients once a week after each review clinic. An oncologist and a radiographer or nurse reviewed the patients during weeks 1–4 of treatment. A review form was completed at each visit specifying any side effects noted.

Results: Patients appeared satisfied with their clinic visits to both the radiographer and nurse with 84 and 85% confidence and trust in the members of staff compared to 73% with the doctor. There was disparity in the recording of side effects between non-medical and medical staff groups.

Conclusion: This audit has provided good evidence to support the continuation of multi-disciplinary review clinics. A key benefit is the reduction in clinic waiting times for patients and a substantial time saving for the medics. It also supports role development for the radiographer and nurse involved.

Keywords

breast cancerradiotherapyreview clinicstreatment reactions
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 233 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Breaking the mould: roles, responsibilities and skills mix in Departments of Clinical Oncology. The Royal College of Radiologists, November 2002.Google Scholar
The report by the expert advisory group on cancer to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales: a policy framework for the commissioning of cancer services. Department of Health, London, 1995.Google Scholar
The new NHS, modern, dependable. Department of Health, London, 1997.Google Scholar
Building on success—future directions for the allied health professions in Scotland. Scottish Executive Health Department, 2002.Google Scholar
Role development for radiographers and radiography support staff within Scotland. NHS Education for Scotland, 2006.Google Scholar
Framework for role development in the allied health professions. Scottish Executive Health Department, 2005.Google Scholar
Price, R, High, J, Miller, L.The developing role of the radiographer. Department of Radiography, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, 1997.Google Scholar
Colyer, H, Hammick, M, Sinclair, N, Fell, K, Richards, C, Travis, D.The practice and process of therapeutic radiography: a professional perspective. College of Radiographers, London, 1999.Google Scholar
Campbell, J, German, L, Lane, C, Dodwell, D.Radiotherapy outpatient review: a nurse-led clinic. Clin Oncol 2000;12:104–107.Google ScholarPubMed
Fisher, B, Anderson, S, Redmond, CK, Wolmark, N, Wickerham, DL, Cronin, WM.Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomised controlled clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1995; 333:1456–1461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forrest, AP, Stewart, HJ.Randomised controlled trial of conservation therapy for breast cancer: 6 year analysis of the Scottish Trial. Lancet 1996; 348: 708–713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liljegren, G, Holmberg, L, Bergh, J et al. 10 Year results after sector resection with or without post-operative radiotherapy for stage 1 breast cancer: a randomised trial. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 2326–2333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veronesi, U, Marubini, E, Mariani, L et al. Radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery in small breast carcinoma: Long term results of a randomised trial. Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 997–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overgaard, M, Jensen, MB, Overgaard, J et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk postmenopausal breast-cancer patients given adjuvant tamoxifen: Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group DBCG 82c randomised trial. Lancet 1999; 353: 1641–1648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Overgaard, M, Hansen, PS, Overgaard, J et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk premenopausal women with breast cancer who receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group 82b Trial. N Engl J Med 1997;337(14):949–955.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ragaz, J, Jackson, SM, Le, N et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy in node positive premenopausal women with breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 956–962.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strategic Work Plan 2005–2008. NHS Education for Scotland.Google Scholar
The Patient's Charter: A Charter for Health. NHS, Scotland, 1991.Google Scholar
Stephens, RJ, Hopwood, P, Girling, DJ, Machin, D.Randomized trials with quality of life endpoints: are doctors’ ratings of patients’ physical symptoms interchangeable with patients’ self-ratings? Qual Life Res 1997;6:225–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slevin, ML, Plant, H, Lynch, D, Drinkwater, J, Gregory, WM.Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? Br J Cancer 1988;57:109–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisch, MJ, Titzer, ML, Kristeller, JL et al. Assessment of quality of life in outpatients with advanced cancer: the accuracy of clinician estimations and the relevance of spiritual well-being—a Hoosier Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21(14): 2754–2759.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glean, E, Edwards, S, Faithfull, S et al. Intervention for acute radiotherapy induced skin reactions in cancer patients: the development of a clinical guideline recommended for use by the College of Radiographers. J Radiother Pract 2001; 2: 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skincare of Patients Receiving Radiotherapy Best Practice Statement. NHS Quality Improvement, Scotland, April 2004.Google Scholar