Kalsi T, Harari D. Assessment methods and services for older people with cancer in the United Kingdom. World J Clin Oncol 2020; 11(3): 152-161 [PMID: 32257846 DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v11.i3.152]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Tania Kalsi, MBBS, MD, MRCP, Doctor, Department of Ageing and Health, 9th Floor North Wing, St Thomas' Hospital, Guys and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7EH, United Kingdom. tania.kalsi@gstt.nhs.uk
Research Domain of This Article
Oncology
Article-Type of This Article
Evidence-Based Medicine
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Clin Oncol. Mar 24, 2020; 11(3): 152-161 Published online Mar 24, 2020. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v11.i3.152
Table 1 Background of respondents
Specialty
n (%)
Clinical oncology
135 (21.3)
Medical oncology
164 (25.8)
Cancer services/oncology other
93 (14.6)
Acute oncology
30 (4.7)
Haem-oncology
54 (8.5)
Surgery
49 (7.7)
Geriatrics/elderly care
61 (9.6)
Palliative care
23 (3.6)
Other
26 (4.1)
Discipline
Doctor
332 (52.0)
Nurse
251 (39.3)
Physiotherapist/occupational therapist
34 (5.3)
Other
21 (3.3)
Tumour group
All
241 (37.7)
Tumour specific
350 (54.7)
Not applicable
36 (5.6)
Table 2 Health professionals involved in the assessment of older people presenting to cancer service (%)
Health professional
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Don't know
Oncologist
51.4 (298/580)
36.9 (214/580)
7.1 (41/580)
2.2 (13/580)
1.6 (9/580)
0.1 (5/580)
Surgeon
19.4 (106/545)
34.1 (186/545)
34.3 (187/545)
5.1 (28/545)
3.5 (19/545)
3.5 (19/545)
Geriatrician
4.7 (25/531)
9.4 (50/531)
24.7 (131/531)
32.6 (173/531)
21.1 (112/531)
7.5 (40/531)
Nurse
59.3 (343/578)
30.1 (174/578)
5.9 (34/578)
1.4 (8/578)
1.4 (8/578)
1.9 (11/578)
Physiotherapist
7.6 (42/556)
28.2 (157/556)
36.3 (202/556)
15.8 (88/556)
5.8 (32/556)
6.3 (35//556)
Occupational therapist
6.1 (34/553)
28.9 (160/553)
33.5 (185/553)
19.0 (105/553)
6.1 (34/553)
6.3 (35/553)
Dietician
4.7 (26/554)
29.1 (161/554)
42.1 (233/554)
13.4 (74/554)
5.6 (31/554)
5.2 (29/554)
Social worker
2.9 (16/550)
19.1 (105/550)
41.6 (229/550)
19.8 (109/550)
8.9 (49/550)
7.6 (42/550)
Pharmacist
23.8 (131/550)
24.4 (134/550)
19.6 (108/550)
17.1 (94/550)
9.6 (53/550)
5.5 (30/550)
General practitioner
26.6 (143/538)
25.5 (137/538)
18.8 (101/538)
11.3 (61/538)
7.8 (42/538)
10.0 (54/538)
Table 3 Assessment methods currently used (%)
Used
Not used
Don't know
Assessment method
Clinical history
98.5 (572/581)
1.0 (6/581)
0.5 (3/581)
Performance status
90.2 (513/569)
7.7 (44/569)
2.1 (12/569)
Scores
33.8 (179/529)
53.1 (281/529)
13.0 (69/529)
Local methods
13.7 (64/467)
69.0 (322/467)
17.3 (81/467)
Structured assessment and/or assessment tool used to assess
Comorbidity
62.2 (345/555)
31.2 (173/555)
6.7 (37/555)
Medications
60.1 (333/554)
33.2 (184/554)
6.7 (37/554)
Frailty
46.8 (257/549)
44.3 (243/549)
8.9 (49/549)
Mobility
61.1 (337/552)
34.2 (189/552)
4.7 (26/552)
Falls
51.9 (285/549)
42.8 (235/549)
5.3 (29/549)
Function
65.0 (358/551)
30.5 (168/551)
4.5 (25/551)
Nutrition
58.5 (321/549)
35.2 (193/549)
6.4 (35/549)
Quality of life
52.8 (290/549)
40.1 (220/549)
7.1 (39/549)
Cognition
60.5 (329/544)
31.8 (173/544)
7.7 (42/544)
Mood
46.9 (254/542)
43.0 (233/542)
10.1 (55/542)
Social circumstances
57.2 (313/547)
36.2 (198/547)
6.6 (36/547)
Table 4 Specific tools used or would consider to use, % (n)
Used
Would consider to use but currently do not use
ASA score
10.5 (67)
3.9 (25)
POSSUM score
5.9 (38)
4.7 (30)
G8 score
1.7 (11)
9.2 (59)
VES13
0.6 (4)
5.2 (33)
ACE27
4.8 (31)
8.1 (52)
CCI
6.7 (43)
12.8 (82)
Number of comorbidities
19.4 (124)
Barthel’s index of ADLs
15.0 (96)
12.0 (77)
iADLs
15.2 (97)
8.6 (55)
AMT score
27.3 (175)
6.1 (39)
MMSE
36.7 (235)
7.7 (49)
MoCA
7.5 (48)
3.9 (25)
GDS
6.9 (44)
13.6 (87)
HADS
20.2 (129)
8.9 (57)
PHQ9
2.5 (16)
9.1 (58)
MUST
32.8 (210)
8.3 (53)
BMI
56.1 (359)
5.8 (37)
EFS
3.8 (24)
13.1 (84)
GFI
0.0 (1)
8.4 (54)
Rockwood pictorial frailty scale
1.4 (9)
8.8 (56)
HNA
44.8 (287)
11.3 (72)
EORTC QLQ-C30
9.8 (63)
11.4 (73)
CGA-GOLD questionnaire
Not asked as not well known
8.1 (52)
Table 5 Multi-disciplinary access (%)
Health professional
Urgent access
Routine access
No access
Don't know
Geriatrician
24.8 (118/475)
48.0 (228/475)
19.4 (92/475)
7.8 (37/475)
Medical physician
41.3 (191/462)
37.2 (172/462)
16.2 (75/462)
5.2 (24/462)
Single organ specialists
43.6 (203/466)
44.2 (206/466)
7.5 (35/466)
4.7 (22/466)
General practitioners
39.9 (188/471)
49.5 (233/471)
7.2 (34/471)
3.4 (16/471)
Physiotherapists
42.9 (204/476)
47.1 (224/476)
5.9 (28/476)
4.2 (20/476)
Occupational therapists
37.2 (178/479)
52.0 (249/479)
6.1 (29/479)
4.8 (23/479)
Dietician
38.9 (186/478)
54.0 (258/478)
4.2 (20/478)
2.9 (14/478)
Social workers
24.7 (116/470)
58.9 (277/470)
9.8 (46/470)
6.6 (31/470)
Psychological
26.5 (126/475)
56.8 (270/475)
11.8 (56/475)
4.9 (23/475)
Older peoples nurse
17.3 (82/473)
31.3 (148/473)
33.6 (159/473)
17.8 (84/473)
Psychiatry
16.5 (78/473)
47.1 (223/473)
21.8 (103/473)
14.6 (69/473)
Palliative care
78.7 (377/479)
19.2 (92/479)
0.6 (3/479)
1.5 (7/479)
Citation: Kalsi T, Harari D. Assessment methods and services for older people with cancer in the United Kingdom. World J Clin Oncol 2020; 11(3): 152-161