title: [Second Opinion Consult Clinic for Surgical Oncology in the Daniel den Hoed Clinic: analysis of the first 245 patients].
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To determine the characteristics and outcome in patients visiting a surgical oncology outpatient clinic for a second opinion.
  
  
  METHODS
  Prospective and descriptive.
  
  
  METHODS
  From October 1996 till December 1998, 245 patients visited the Second Opinion Outpatient Clinic of the department of Surgical Oncology of the University Hospital Rotterdam/Daniel den Hoed Cancer Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The oncological data were recorded. The patient's satisfaction with their first physician and the hospital was scored in a standardized way. Cytological, histological and radiological material was revised and discrepancies with the results from elsewhere were recorded. The results of comparing the first and second opinion were retrospectively categorized as: identical; not identical without consequences for the prognosis but with implications for the quality of life; not identical with implications for the prognosis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The primary tumour was breast cancer in 58% of the patients, 19% had a tumour of the digestive tract, and 23% presented with a variety of malignancies. The main problems for which the second opinion was asked were treatment (69%), diagnosis (17%) and adjuvant treatment (11%). Of all patients 53% was satisfied with the communication with the primary physician, 24% was moderately satisfied and 23% was unsatisfied. Revision of pathological and radiological material was done in 214 and 157 patients, respectively, resulting in 1% and 3% major discrepancies with therapeutical implications. The second opinion was identical to the first opinion in 53% of the patients. In 24% it was different without and in 7% with possible implications for the prognosis. In 16% a comparison of the second with the first opinion was not possible. Seventy-one per cent of the patients were referred to the primary physician, while for 21% further treatment or follow-up was done in the Cancer Centre and 8% chose to be referred to another hospital. Of patients who were satisfied or moderately satisfied with the communication with their primary physician 83% and 79% respectively were referred to the primary physician compared with 31% of those who were unsatisfied.
authors.affiliation: Academisch Ziekenhuis Rotterdam/Daniel den Hoed Kliniek, Postbus, AE Rotterdam.
authors.forename: W A
authors.initials: WA
authors.lastname: Mellink
authors.forename: S C
authors.initials: SC
authors.lastname: Henzen-Logmans
authors.forename: A H
authors.initials: AH
authors.lastname: Bongaerts
authors.forename: J F
authors.initials: JF
authors.lastname: Pruyn
authors.forename: A N
authors.initials: AN
authors.lastname: van Geel
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Wiggers
mesh_terms: D000046:Academic Medical Centers / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008495:Medical Oncology / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D009426:Netherlands; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D012017:Referral and Consultation / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013503:Surgery Department, Hospital / Q000706:statistics & numerical data