1880P - Cancer care: Psychoeducational intervention for first-year residents of a general hospital in northeastern Mexico

Background

Physicians must help patients to maintain motivation and resolve barriers to adherence to treatment, but this does not happen in many cases. The impact of cancer in the coming years will have devastating consequences for the health system since it is the third cause of mortality in the country. Therefore, a substantial change in medical education, health policies is imperative. They are future specialists, the attitudinal barriers could limit their skills and abilities in the task for general surgeons, gynecologists, otolaryngologists, and anesthetists. To detect and change barriers, implement a strategy of 180 minutes in a reflexive focus group.

Methods

Descriptive, non-blind study approved by the Research Ethics Committee (ON23-00003), informed consent was requested from 51 medical residents of the surgical areas of a general hospital who attended a psychoeducational focus group in 2 frequencies, they answered the survey about their beliefs and attitudes regarding the care of cancer patients. 3 key questions were analyzed to ensure knowledge together with reflection, reinforcing empathic attitudes and team collaboration of the participants.

Results

The subjects correctly considered the definition of oncology pre and post-intervention (84 vs 91%), that the treating physician had to give the diagnosis (55 vs 92%) that there is no correct answer for how long a patient would live (89 vs 96%), The term used by the patient to name the cancer doesn´t matter as long as they understand the disease (32 vs 42%), That they should not join the conspiracy of silence proposed by the patient or family (77 vs 91%) If they believed that there is treatment in any stage of cancer (55 vs 87%), if they should care for patients with cancer with a CPR indication vs other chronic patients with hypertensive crisis and DM (64 vs 81%), if they considered palliative care and psycho-oncology for diagnostic phases (63 vs 85%). In the qualitative aspect they left satisfied and mostly looking forward to new sessions that would allow them to carry out their work and education.

Conclusions

There was a percentage impact in generating substantive changes in the opinion of the subjects; this first step should be followed up with more studies and is of relevance to medical educators.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.