Second opinions in oncology: the experiences of patients attending the Sydney Cancer Centre.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the frequency, goals and outcomes of second-opinion consultations at the Sydney Cancer Centre. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A questionnaire-based study of patients who registered to see a medical oncologist at the Sydney Cancer Centre between January 2006 and January 2008 and who were seeking a second opinion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion and demographic characteristics of patients who had previously seen a medical oncologist and who stated they were seeking a second opinion. RESULTS: 123 of 1892 new patients (6.5%) stated that they were seeking a second opinion, of whom 22 declined study participation, were excluded from study participation or had been referred specifically for enrolment in a particular clinical trial. Of the remaining 101 patients, 77 completed a questionnaire; 59 were women and 26 had a university degree. Reasons for seeking second opinions included: to obtain information related to treatment (54 patients), for reassurance about diagnosis or treatment (47), and dissatisfaction with the information given by the first medical oncologist (24). Sixty-four patients reported that they received new information at the second-opinion consultation, with 45 identifying discussion of treatment options and 34 identifying discussion of future or prognosis. Fifty-one patients reported how the second-opinion consultation differed from the first, identifying it as longer (24), and indicating that the oncologist answered concerns (26). Most patients were aware of multidisciplinary teams and treatment guidelines, but fewer had read guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Patients seeking a second opinion from a medical oncologist are typically more educated, younger and female, probably due to preferences for more detailed information. The most common reasons for seeking a second opinion were to obtain additional information or reassurance about recommended management.

Does age really matter? Recall of information presented to newly referred patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: To examine age- and age-related differences in recall of information provided during oncology consultations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred sixty patients with cancer diagnosed with heterogeneous cancers, seeing a medical or radiation oncologist for the first time, participated in the study. Patients completed questionnaires assessing information needs and anxiety. Recall of information provided was measured using a structured telephone interview in which patients were prompted to remember details physicians gave about diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Recall was checked against the actual communication in audio-recordings of the consultations. RESULTS: Recall decreased significantly with age, but only when total amount of information presented was taken into account. This indicates that if more information is discussed, older patients have more trouble remembering the information than younger ones. In addition, recall was selectively influenced by prognosis. First, patients with a poorer prognosis recalled less. Next, the more information was provided about prognosis, the less information patients recalled, regardless of their actual prognosis. CONCLUSION: Recall is not simply a function of patient age. Age only predicts recall when controlling for amount of information presented. Both prognosis and information about prognosis are better predictors of recall than age. These results provide important insights into intervention strategies to improve information recall in patients with cancer.

Randomized controlled trial of a prompt list to help advanced cancer patients and their caregivers to ask questions about prognosis and end-of-life care.

PURPOSE: To determine whether provision of a question prompt list (QPL) influences advanced cancer patients'/caregivers' questions and discussion of topics relevant to end-of-life care during consultations with a palliative care (PC) physician. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included patients randomly assigned to standard consultation or provision of QPL before consultation, with endorsement of the QPL by the physician during the consultation. Consecutive eligible patients with advanced cancer referred to 15 PC physicians from nine Australian PC services were invited to participate. Consultations were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed by blinded coders; patients completed questionnaires before, within 24 hours, and 3 weeks after the consultation. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients participated (92 QPL, 82 control). Compared with controls, QPL patients and caregivers asked twice as many questions (for patients, ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.2; P < .0001), and patients discussed 23% more issues covered by the QPL (95% CI, 11% to 37%; P < .0001). QPL patients asked more prognostic questions (ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.0; P = .004) and discussed more prognostic (ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8, P = .003) and end-of-life issues (30% v 10%; P = .001). Fewer QPL patients had unmet information needs about the future (21 = 4.14; P = .04), which was the area of greatest unmet information need. QPL consultations (average, 38 minutes) were longer (P = .002) than controls (average, 31 minutes). No differences between groups were observed in anxiety or patient/physician satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Providing a QPL and physician endorsement of its use assists terminally ill cancer patients and their caregivers to ask questions and promotes discussion about prognosis and end-of-life issues, without creating patient anxiety or impairing satisfaction.