Search

Background: The current study aimed to further our understanding of second opinions among medical oncology patients by examining the proportion of patients who sought a second opinion about their cancer treatment, and why. Methods: The study was conducted between 2013 and 2015 in three medical oncology clinics located in public hospitals in Australia: in metropolitan New South Wales, metropolitan Queensland, and in Tasmania. Those patients who provide written informed consent were asked to complete a brief paper and pencil survey in the clinic containing questions on sociodemographic, disease and treatment characteristics. Approximately 1 month later, participants were mailed a second paper and pencil survey which contained questions about whether they had sought a second opinion and their motivation for doing so. Non-responders were followed up by letter at 3 and 6 weeks. Results: Of 823 patients screened for eligibility, 698 eligible patients, 612 provided consent. Of those who consented, 355 completed both the initial survey and the second survey and were included in the analyses. Of the 57 patients who sought a second opinion, the most frequent reasons given for doing so were the need for reassurance (49.1%) and the need to consider the range of treatment options (41.8%). Of the 297 (83.6%) participants who did not seek a second opinion, the main reason was confidence in the first doctor (88.7%). Only 3.1% patients did not know that they could ask for a second opinion. Occasionally the doctor will initiate the referral for a second opinion. Conclusions: Our study suggests that a minority of cancer patients seek a second opinion at some phase during their care. Most did so for reassurance or to ensure that they had covered all of the treatment options and not because of discomfort or distrust of their treating doctor. Few patients reported a lack of awareness of second opinions. This suggests that second opinions form part of a patient-centred approach to information provision about care options. Whether the second opinion improves the quality of care or indeed outcomes has been difficult to demonstrate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To plan integrated care at end of life for people with either heart failure or lung disease, we used a case conference between the patient's general practitioner (GP), specialist services and a palliative care consultant physician. This intervention significantly reduced hospitalisations and emergency department visits. This paper reports estimates of potential savings of reduced hospitalisation through end of life case conferences in a pilot study. Methods: We used Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Group codes to obtain data on hospitalisations and costs. The Australian health system is a federation: the national government is responsible for funding community based care, while state and territory governments fund public hospitals. There were 35 case conferences for patients with end stage heart failure or lung disease, who were patients of the public hospital system, involving 30 GPs in a regional health district. Results: The annualised total cost per patient was AUD$90,060 before CC and AUD$11,841 after CC. The mean per person cost saving was AUD$41,023 ($25,274 excluding one service utilisation outlier). For every 100 patients with end of life heart failure and lung disease each year, the case conferencing intervention would save AUD$4.1 million (AUD$2.5 million excluding one service utilisation outlier). Conclusions: Multidisciplinary case conferences that promote integrated care among specialists and GPs resulted in substantial cost savings while providing care. Cost shifting between national and state or territory governments may impede implementation of this successful health service intervention. An integrated model such as ours is very relevant to initiatives to reform national health care. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Controlled Trials Register ACTRN12613001377729: Registered 16/12/2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]