Paper
Saturday, 22 July 2006
This presentation is part of : Initiatives for Cancer Patients
Use of Health Related Quality of Life (QOL) Assessment in Clinical Practice of Oncology Nurses and Physicians
Wendy C. Budin, RN, BC, PhD1, Nancy Chiocchi, MSN, RN1, Ann Marie Hill, MA2, Kerry Hennessy, MPH3, and Dona Schneider, PhD, MPH3. (1) College of Nursing, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ, USA, (2) New Jersey State Commission on Cancer Research, Trenton, NJ, USA, (3) Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Learning Objective #1: describe use of health related quality of life (QOL) assessment in clinical practice of oncology nurses and physicians.
Learning Objective #2: identify barriers that oncology nurses and physicians face using standardized tools to measure health related quality of life (QOL) in cancer patients.
Background: Quality of life (QOL) is increasingly recognized as an important dimension of overall health status.  Research suggests that routine use of QOL instruments as part of clinical practice has the potential to improve the quality of care that patients receive as well as their health status. Although QOL assessment is now widely accepted in cancer clinical trials, it is not clear if such recognition has taken place in the clinical practice setting.

Purpose: To determine the use of QOL assessment of oncology nurses and physicians in their practices, their knowledge of specific QOL instruments, and any barriers they face to using these tools. 

Methods/Sample: A survey designed to assess the use of  QOL assessment in cancer care was mailed to 790 oncology nurses and 264 oncologists in New Jersey.  Three hundred seventeen surveys were completed and returned by nurses (40%) and 163  by oncologists (50%).  

Results: Although  88.6% of the oncologists responded that they ask their patients about overall well-being or QOL at every visit, only 12.4% use standardized tools.  For nurses 64% responded that they ask their patients about QOL at every visit however only 23% used standardized tools.  Physical symptoms were assessed significantly more often than psychosocial symptoms  (p < .001) by both nurses and oncologists. Nurses and oncologists rated  the usefulness of various standardized QOL instruments as moderately useful [nurse, M =3.7 (SD=1.0); oncologist, M = 3.0, (SD=1.3.) on a scale of 1-5].  The greatest barrier that both nurses and oncologists faced using tools for assessing QOL was identifying standardized tools that are valid and reliable (64% -nurses; 74% -oncologists).

Conclusions/Implications: Educating nurses and physicians working with oncology patients about the benefits of standardized QOL assessment tools and identifying tools best suited to their practice would be important steps in improving QOL assessment in clinical practice.

See more of Initiatives for Cancer Patients
See more of The 17th International Nursing Research Congress Focusing on Evidence-Based Practice (19-22 July 2006)