Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:53:39.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Breast radiotherapy: a single centre survey of non-medical weekly patient review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

P. McIlroy ,
A. McIntyre ,
A. Ross ,
C. Gallagher  and
C. Brown
P. McIlroy*
Affiliation:
Breast Clinical Nurse Specialist, The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 OYN, UK
A. McIntyre
Affiliation:
Superintendent Therapy Radiographer, The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0YN, UK
A. Ross
Affiliation:
Superintendent Therapy Radiographer, The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0YN, UK
C. Gallagher
Affiliation:
Out-patient Staff Nurse, The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 OYN, UK
C. Brown
Affiliation:
Clinical Audit Department, North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust, Gartnavel General Hospital, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 OYN, UK
*
Correspondence to: Pauline McIlroy, Breast Clinical Nurse Specialist, The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0YN, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims: Monitoring and reviewing patients during adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer is an integral component of care and was until recently a predominantly medical domain. Patients were often reviewed in busy routine breast clinics, for short consultations with a variety of medical staff and with little time to address questions or concerns. Non-medical treatment review clinics, staffed by senior nursing and senior therapy radiographers have been introduced to provide a dedicated, consistent treatment review. This survey was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the non-medical review of these patients.

Materials and methods: This was a prospective survey of all patients attending for breast or chest wall radiotherapy, between 1st July 2003 and 30th June 2004. Patients were invited to complete and return a postal questionnaire related to their treatment and treatment review. Review staff collected data on demographic information, clinical history and treatment intent for these patients at first visit. At subsequent weekly review visits, data were recorded relating to patient assessment, interventions and referrals initiated. Skin reactions were graded using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scoring tool.

Results: One thousand and ninety-five patient questionnaires were distributed and 865 (79%) were returned. There were high satisfaction scores with the time spent with review staff (99.7%) and the ability to discuss all aspects of treatment and concerns (99.1%). One hundred and ninety-three patients were referred to non-medical staff for additional support. Five hundred and forty-four were referred to medical staff. The majority (437) were planned referrals to their clinical oncologist to prescribe a ‘boost’ or review endocrine treatment and 107 to their general practitioner for routine visits and employment certificates. Review staff data of 1,067 patients showed 342 referrals for treatment and non-treatment related physical problems, 80 referrals for additional information and emotional support. Majority of skin reactions were grade 1 or 2a.

Conclusion: The successful identification of patients’ supportive needs and high patient satisfaction with this service supports the use of this approach.

Keywords

Breast cancernon-medicalradiotherapytreatment review
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 19 - 29
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

Sitton, E.Early and late radiation skin alterations part I: mechanisms of skin changes. Onc Nur for 1992;19(5):801–807.Google ScholarPubMed
Glean, E, Edwards, S, Faithfull, S, Meredith, C, Richards, C, Smith, M, Colger, H.Intervention for acute radiotherapy induced skin reactions in cancer patients: the development of a clinical guideline recommended for use by college of radiographers. J Radiotherapy Prac 2001;2:75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meredith, C, Symonds, P, Webster, L, Lamont, D, Pyper, E, Gillis, CR, Fallowfield, L.Information needs of cancer patients in West Scotland: a cross sectional survey of patient's views. Br Med J 1996; 313:724–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowling, J.Radiotherapy nursing: understanding the nurse's role. Nurs Stand 1998;12(25):42–43.Google Scholar
Campbell, J, German, L, Chrissie, MA.Radiotherapy outpatient review: a nurse-led clinic. Nurs Stand 1999;13(22):39–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coyler, H.The role of the radiotherapy treatment review radiographer. Radiography 2000;6(4):253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal College of Radiologists Clinical Oncology Information Network Guidelines for external beam radiotherapy. A document for local expert groups in the United Kingdom preparing radiotherapy policy documents. Clin Oncol 1999;11(4):133–172.Google Scholar
Pennery, E, Mallet, J.A preliminary study of patient's perceptions of routine follow-up after treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2000;4(3):139–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loftus, L, Weston, V.The development of nurse-led clinics in cancer care. J Clin Nurs 2001;10(2):215–220.Google ScholarPubMed
Richardson, A, Cunliffe, L.New horizons: the motives, diversity and future of ‘nurse-led’ care. J Nurs Manag 2003;11(2):80–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, A.Non-medical follow-up in cancer care. Cancer Nurs Pract 2005;3(4):26–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, J.The benefits of nurse-led cancer follow-up. Cancer Nurs Pract 2005;3(4):29–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, JD, Stetz, J, Pajak, TF.Toxicity criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;31:1341–1346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
College of Radiographers (eds). Therapeutic radiography: a vision for the future. London:College of Radiographers 1997.Google Scholar
Board of the Faculty of Clinical Oncology, The Royal College of Radiologists, The Society and The College of Radiographers, The Royal College of Nursing, The Institute of Physics an Engineering in Medicine (eds). Breaking the mould: roles, responsibilities and skills mix in departments of clinical oncology. London:Royal College of Radiologists 2002.Google Scholar
Nial, LM, Jones, LS, Greene, D, Schipper, DL, Jensen, R.Use and perceived efficacy of self-care activities in patients receiving chemotherapy. Onc Nur for 1991;18(5)883–887.Google Scholar
Harrison, DE, Galloway, S, Graydon, JE, Palmer-Wickam, S, Rich-van der Bij, L.Information needs and preference for information of women with breast cancer over a first course of radiation therapy. Patient Educ Couns 1999;38(3):217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, LE.Being informed: undergoing radiation therapy. Cancer Nurs 2001;24(6):463–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jahraus, D, Sokolosky, S, Thurston, N, Guo, D.Evaluation of an education programme for patients with breast cancer receiving radiation therapy. 2002;Cancer Nurs 25(4):266–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breast Cancer Care, Breakthrough Breast Cancer 2005 What breast cancer patients want from a world class radiotherapy service. www.breastcancercare.org.uk/docs/radiotherapy_report_o.pdf.Google Scholar