Prioritization and Resource Allocation in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations for Colorectal and Pancreatic Cancer in Germany.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a scarcity of resources with various effects on the care of cancer patients. This paper provides an English summary of a German guideline on prioritization and resource allocation for colorectal and pancreatic cancer in the context of the pandemic. Based on a selective literature review as well as empirical and ethical analyses, the research team of the CancerCOVID Consortium drafted recommendations for prioritizing diagnostic and treatment measures for both entities. The final version of the guideline received consent from the executive boards of nine societies of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), 20 further professional organizations and 22 other experts from various disciplines as well as patient representatives. The guiding principle for the prioritization of decisions is the minimization of harm. Prioritization decisions to fulfill this overall goal should be guided by (1) the urgency relevant to avoid or reduce harm, (2) the likelihood of success of the diagnostic or therapeutic measure advised, and (3) the availability of alternative treatment options. In the event of a relevant risk of harm as a result of prioritization, these decisions should be made by means of a team approach. Gender, age, disability, ethnicity, origin, and other social characteristics, such as social or insurance status, as well as the vehemence of a patient's treatment request and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status should not be used as prioritization criteria. The guideline provides concrete recommendations for (1) diagnostic procedures, (2) surgical procedures for cancer, and (3) systemic treatment and radiotherapy in patients with colorectal or pancreatic cancer within the context of the German healthcare system.

Analysis of Burnout Prevalence among German Physicians Working in a Palliative Care Setting: A Survey of the AIO Quality of Life Working Group.

INTRODUCTION: Palliative care physicians (Pcps) face special challenges caring for terminally ill patients. We conducted this study to evaluate the burnout (bo) prevalence among pcps and sought to identify risk as well as protective factors as a basis for the development of preventive measures. METHODS: Participants (Pcs) were invited via e-mail to complete an online survey between May and June 2022. Besides the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory assessing the bo dimensions of exhaustion (exh) and disengagement (dis), sociodemographic data were collected. RESULTS: The study found that 58% (cut-off mean value [M] ≥2.18) or more specifically, 38% (cut-off M ≥2.5) of the pcs showed increased scores in the exh subscale as a key dimension of bo. All dimensions were correlated with the level of medical and palliative care training, with higher scores for physicians in training. Furthermore, pcs without preventive measures like employee appraisals at work were more likely to be considered exhausted, disengaged, or burned out. The discrepancy between high exh and low dis scores shows that the polled pcps, despite feeling exh, nevertheless considered their work meaningful. CONCLUSION: Bo prevalence among pcps exceeds that of the general population and other specialties, whereas inexperienced pcps might be at high risk of shifting from exh to bo and could therefore benefit from tailored support. Further preventive measures including individual and organizational aspects are necessary to prevent bo and promote health among medical staff, thereby preserving quality of patient care. Elementary preventive measures such as employee appraisals can have a protective effect against bo.

Assessment and Evaluation of Psychosocial Distress in Outpatients with Cancer at a University Hospital in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients (pts) suffer from a significant amount of psychosocial distress related to tumor disease itself or straining treatments. Despite recommendations on how to screen for and to deal with psychosocial distress in cancer pts, data about implementation of psycho-oncological interventions (poi) in outpatient settings of cancer pts are scarce. The aim of this study was to identify outpatients with cancer in need of poi and to evaluate different assessment instruments. METHODS: N = 200 outpatients with hemat-/oncological malignancies were interviewed between October 2015 and December 2017 at the University Hospital Mannheim using the Basic Documentation for Psycho-Oncology (PO-Bado) and the Hornheider Screening Instrument (HSI) - both clinician-administered assessment tools - followed by descriptive, univariate, and agreement analysis. RESULTS: N = 61 cancer pts (31%) were identified to be in need for poi considering the results of both questionnaires. The number of identified pts in need of poi was lower when analyzing the results of the PO-Bado (n = 42, 21%) and the HSI (n = 39, 20%) separately. The degree of agreement between the results of PO-Bado and HSI was low (kappa = 0.3655). Several factors like gender, age and diagnosis were identified to have significant impact on the need for poi (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study underlines that different screening instruments for psychosocial distress may identify disparate populations of cancer pts. The study data also revealed significant characteristics that might be associated with elevated levels of psychosocial distress and a clear indication for poi. However, further analyses on larger populations of cancer pts are needed to provide information how to transfer positive screening to poi in clinical routine.