Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEaton, Marie A
dc.contributor.authorNeal, Hilary
dc.contributor.authorMcEntee, Delyth
dc.contributor.authorBostock, Layla
dc.contributor.authorHalkyard, Emma
dc.contributor.authorBayman, Neil A
dc.contributor.authorBlackhall, Fiona H
dc.contributor.authorFenemore, Jackie
dc.contributor.authorGomes, Fabio
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-06T11:15:17Z
dc.date.available2021-01-06T11:15:17Z
dc.date.issued2020en
dc.identifier.citationEaton MA, Neal H, McEntee D, Bostock L, Halkyard E, Bayman NA, et al. Assessment of frailty in lung cancer patients: is there concordance between lung cancer clinical nurse specialists (LCNS) and oncologists? Lung Cancer. 2020;139:S76-Sen
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/623587
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The treatment landscape for lung cancer patients is rapidly evolving with multiple lines and combinations available. With an aging population, identifying and managing frailty is increasingly important. The Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was introduced at this tertiary cancer centre in November 2018 to assess lung cancer patients at first appointment. The aim of this audit was to assess concordance of CFS scoring between oncologists and the LCNS. Methods: New lung cancer patients at this centre are routinely assessed by both oncologist and LCNS and their fitness level evaluation routinely includes the Rockwood CFS (1–8 scale). CFS 1–3 is considered fit and 4–8 vulnerable/frail. Over two months, the LCNS team independently scored each new patient and results were compared with the scores from oncologists. Results: The concordance rate between oncologists and LCNS was 31% of the 45 patients included. In 74% of cases, the LCNS assessed the patient as more frail with the mean CFS score for oncologists being 3.6 and 4.1 for LCNS (p=0.01). For those classed by oncologists as ‘vulnerable/frail’ there was no significant difference in the mean scores when compared with LCNS (4.9 and 5.1, respectively). For those classed by oncologists as ‘fit’ the mean score was significantly higher (more frail) when assessed by the LCNS (2.6 and 3.7; p=0.001). Patients receiving systemic treatment and classed as ‘fit’ by the LCNS had an admission rate of 33%, hotline use of 56% and an average 7 contacts with LCNS. Patients classed as ‘fit’ by the Clinicians had an admission rate of 47%, hotline use of 68% and an average 6 contacts with LCNS. Conclusion: LCNS identify a higher proportion of frail patients, particularly patients with a borderline fitness level. These results will be used in developing a triage tool for the LCNS service.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.titleAssessment of frailty in lung cancer patients: is there concordance between lung cancer clinical nurse specialists (LCNS) and oncologists?en
dc.typeMeetings and Proceedingsen
dc.contributor.departmentThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchesteren
dc.identifier.journalLung Canceren
dc.description.noteen]


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record