Doctor's Perception and Referral Barriers toward Palliative Care for Advanced Cancer Patients / 한국호스피스완화의료학회지

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to identify the perception regarding palliative care among Korean doctors and referral barriers toward palliative care for terminal cancer patients. METHODS: Between May and June 2010, 477 specialists mainly caring cancer patients using a web-based, self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 128 doctors (26.8%) responded. All respondents (100%) deemed palliative care a necessary service for terminal cancer patients. More than 80% of the respondents agreed to each of the following statements: all cancer centers should provide palliative care service (80.5%); all terminal cancer patients should receive concurrent palliative care along with anti-cancer therapies (89.1%) and caring for terminal cancer patients requires interdisciplinary approach (96.9). While more than 58% of the respondents were satisfied with their performance of physical and psychological symptoms management and emotional support provided by patient's family members, 64% of the responded answered that their general management of the end-of-life care was less than satisfactory. Doctors without prior experience in referring their patients to palliative care specialists accounted for 26.6% of the respondents. The most common barrier to hospice referral, cited by 47.7% of the respondents, was "refusal of patient or family member", followed by "lack of available palliative care resources" (46.1%). CONCLUSION: Although most doctors do recognize the importance of palliative care for advanced cancer patients, comprehensive and sufficient palliative medicine, including interdisciplinary cooperation and end-of-life care, has not been put into practice. Thus, more active palliative consultation or referral is needed for effective care of terminal cancer patients.

Attitude of Korean Primary Care Family Physicians Towards Telehealth / 가정의학회지

BACKGROUND: Recently, a revised telehealth legislation that allows direct doctor to patient teleconsultation was proposed in Korea. However, there have been some debates. This study aimed to examine the attitude of primary care physicians towards telehealth. METHODS: A questionnaire asking attitude towards telehealth and revised telehealth legislation was self-administered to 1,988 registered members of Practitioners Council of Korean Academy of Family Medicine. A total of 218 complete responses by family physicians were included in the study. RESULTS: Large proportion (60.6%) of participants disagreed to the main clause of revised telehealth legislation, which allowed doctor to patient teleconsultation. Participants tended to expect that negative outcomes are more likely to occur than positive outcomes after the enforcement of the revised telehealth legislation. Around 50% of participants had an intention to adopt telehealth just as soon (4.6%) or afterwards (45.4%). The majority of participants suggested that; primary care clinic as the most appropriate telehealth facility (75.4%); patients with low accessibility to medical care (74.3%) as the best target of telehealth service; and tele-radiology (61.9%) or tele-pathology (41.3%) as the most applicable medical field for telehealh service. Around 89% of participants suggested telehealth service fee to be similar or higher than current medical consultation fee. CONCLUSION: The majority of family physicians participating in this study were not in favor of the revised telehealth legislation. However, the majority of the participants had an intention to adopt telehealth to their practice and held clear opinion about practical aspects of telehealth.