Exploring primary care physician feedback following an integrative oncology consultation

Abstract

Objective: To explore responses from primary care physicians(PCPs) from an integrative physician (IP) consultation and recommended integrative oncology (IO) treatment program.Methods: Chemotherapy-treated patients were referred by their oncology healthcare professional to an IP, a physician dually-trained in complementary medicine and supportive cancer care. The consultation summary and patient-centered IO treatment program was then sent to the patient's PCP, with PCP-to-IP responses analyzed qualitatively using ATLAS.Ti software for systematic coding and content analysis. Trial Registration Number NCT01860365 published May 22, 2013. Results: Of the 597 IP consultations conducted, 470 (78.7%) summaries were sent to patients' PCPs, with only 69 (14.7%) PCP-to-IP responses returned. PCPs were more likely to respond if the patient was Hebrew-speaking (78.3% vs. 65.1%, P=0.032). Systematic coding identi ed four predominant themes among PCP narratives: addressing the patient's medical condition and leading QoL-related concerns; patient-centered re ections; available resources providing support and promoting resilience; and PCP attitudes to the IO treatment program.Conclusion: PCP-IP communication can provide valuable insight into the patient's bio-psycho-social care, addressing the patient's health-belief model, emotional concerns, caregiver-related factors, preferences and barriers to adherence to IO care. Practice implications: Healthcare services should consider promoting IP-PCP communication in order to facilitate better patient outcomes from an IO treatment program. present a number of challenges vis-à-vis patient-doctor-CIM practitioner communication. Patients also perceive physician-CIM practitioner communication as important and instrumental in promoting health, effective treatment and safety[12, 13]. Schiff et al compared the perspectives of 473 physicians and 781CIM practitioners in Israel, and suggested a practical framework agreed upon by both for advancing a physician-CIM practitioner dialogue which is based on referral letters that include four elements: medical diagnosis; establishing treatment goals; addressing safety-related issues; and quality of care-related concerns [14]. In another Israeli study focusing on PCPs and CIM practitioners' perspectives regarding a clinical practice collaboration, the majority of participants in both groups preferred using a written medical letter to communicate with each other, with the goal of co-structuring a treatment plan for their patients [15]. In contrast to non-medical CIM practitioners, physicians trained in both conventional and complementary medicine were found to prefer a referral letter to advance doctor-CIM practitioner communication [16].The present study explored the communication between integrative physicians (IPs), medical doctors with dual training in CIM and supportive/palliative care. The study setting is unique, in which an initial IP consultation is provided without charge to patients as part of the medical center's supportive and palliative car...

Integrative Medicine for Cancer-Related Pain: A Narrative Review

“…The collaboration between integrative and conventional healthcare providers, including the patient's primary care physician, can ensure continuity of care in a safe and effective environment [80]. IO services are most often headed by integrative physicians, CIM-trained medical doctors who integrate these modalities in their clinical practice [81].…”

“…The IO model has much to offer in addition to conventional palliative and supportive care to oncology patients, including in the treatment of C-RP and other disabling symptoms. The collaboration between integrative and conventional healthcare providers, including the patient's primary care physician, can ensure continuity of care in a safe and effective environment [80]. IO services are most often headed by integrative physicians, CIM-trained medical doctors who integrate these modalities in their clinical practice [81].…”