. The document defines the expected quality criteria for the structures and professionals delivering care from the national basket of supportive oncology care, both in the community and in hospitals (p. 7-12). It provides a self-assessment and commitment tool including a criteria grid and a charter (Annex I, p. 22-27), as well as a non-exhaustive list of identified training for professionals, updated in 2024 (Annex II, p. 28-35). It specifies the conditions for referencing and awarding a compliance mention in the regional directories of DSRC (p. 13-16). It also addresses city coordination actors, notably the territorial professional health communities (CPTS), coordination support systems (DAC), and multi-professional health houses (MSP), and can serve as a reference for establishments wishing to contract a supportive care offer (p. 6).
🎙️🎥 "
1. Summary
Provided by action II.6.4 of the ten-year strategy to combat cancers 2021-2030 (p. 6), this specification aims primarily to define the quality of the expected offer in supportive oncological care (SOS) across the entire territory and to allow for evaluation (p. 7). It exclusively concerns the care from the basket validated at the national level: four "core" services and five complementary services (p. 4). The targeted populations are adult patients, adolescents and young adults, and children; parents and caregivers may also be involved (p. 6). The text establishes common criteria for all structures, then specific criteria for structures integrated into health establishments, community structures, and professionals (p. 8-12). The evaluation is declarative, through self-assessment (p. 13). In the absence of relevant publications on this organisational theme, the criteria and evaluation methods were developed based on the field experience of a group of 15 experts and 8 institutional representatives, with external review (p. 17-19).
2. What to remember
1. Eight criteria common to structures, both in the city and in the hospital. They relate to the regular and documented assessment of needs, the coordination of interventions with the general practitioner and the oncology team, the adaptation of timelines to the medical situation, the identification of social vulnerability and appropriate referral, the possible use of remote consultations in case of access difficulties, access to therapeutic education programmes for the patient (ETP) or equivalent educational pathways, the progressive assessment of patient satisfaction and the signing of the commitment charter. For SOS related to medical acts, the first consultation must be conducted in-person before any potential follow-up via teleconsultation (p. 8-9).
2. A declarative evaluation. Structures and professionals complete the self-assessment and commitment tool (annex I, provided in the document). First self-assessment within two years of publication, then an invitation to renew it every two years (p. 13). The DSRC do not verify the accuracy of the declarations (p. 15).
3. A referencing and a mention of compliance framed. Structures and professionals only submit to the DSRC their self-assessment and commitment tool, dated and signed, if all the criteria that concern them are met. For those who are not yet referenced and enter this process, this compliance is a prerequisite for referencing, accompanied by a specific mention. For those who are already referenced, the mention is added after receipt of the tool confirming their compliance. In case of non-compliance, their referencing is maintained without this mention for a transitional period of two years, during which they must achieve compliance (p. 15-16).
3. To act
1. Take stock with the grid from Annex I (existing tool mentioned in the document). Criteria to check (p. 24-26) and commitment charter (p. 27). The document invites the DSRC to make this tool available, for download or online entry (p. 15): consult with your DSRC.
2. Carry out the first self-assessment within two years of publication. The process concerns the structures and professionals delivering the SOS from the national basket, including patient associations and other associations that provide these services. The structures and professionals are then invited to renew their self-assessment every two years. For actors already listed in a DSRC directory but not compliant with all the criteria, the text provides a transitional timeframe of two years to achieve compliance; during this period, their listing is maintained without mention of compliance (p. 11, 13 and 16).
3. Check the qualifications and training for oncological specifics. Annex II provides a non-exhaustive list of training, updated in 2024: it distinguishes desirable transversal training and, depending on the areas of intervention, required training as well as recommended complementary training. This annex should be read with the criteria on page 12: professionals must meet the training and diploma requirements necessary for their activity, have benefited from complementary training on oncological specifics when available, regularly consult relevant recommendations, and be aware of the pediatric care or care for adolescents and young adults when they work with these populations (p. 12 and 28-35).
4. Three practical questions
1. Are practices outside the national basket concerned? No. The specifications and its self-assessment tool exclusively focus on care from the basket validated at the national level (p. 4 and p. 22, note 24). The document distinguishes these cares from so-called "non -conventional" practices, highlighting the insufficiency of the level of scientific evidence regarding effectiveness and the necessity for observation and evaluation. It warns that some may expose patients to a loss of opportunity when presented as an alternative to conventional treatments, distancing them from the care pathway or degrading their physical condition (p. 4).
2. Does a mention in the directory of a DSRC guarantee the quality of care? No. The evaluation is declarative (p. 13). The role of the DSRCs is not to verify the truthfulness of declarations and they cannot be held responsible for the quality of referenced care (p. 15, note 19; p. 22). The signature binds the declarant; any false declaration is subject to penalties provided for in articles 441-6 and 441-7 of the Penal Code (p. 15, 27).
3. Should we measure the satisfaction of patients from the first self-assessment? No. The criterion is broken down into two stages: at the first self-assessment, the structure commits via the charter to implement a process and engages in reflection or identification of tools; it evaluates satisfaction from the second self-assessment onwards (p. 9). Questionnaires are attached to the INCa organisational reference of 2021 (p. 9, note 9).
5. To go further
: https://www.pratiquesensante.com/blog/outils-6/cancers-et-soins-de-support-4580
External resource: ARS Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, "The overall care pathway for people receiving or having received treatment for cancer in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes", article of 28 July 2026. The page describes a regional system offering a functional and motivational assessment of adapted physical activity, as well as an assessment and follow-up consultations for dietary and psychological support. The prescription can occur during treatment and up to twelve months after the end of active treatments; after the first assessment, the patient has twelve months to complete their pathway, coordinated by a supporting structure. This system is distinct from the national specifications analysed. Address: https://www.auvergne-rhone-alpes.ars.sante.fr/le-parcours-de-soins-global-pour-les-personnes-recevant-ou-ayant-recu-un-traitement-contre-le
6. Hashtags
#healthpractices #SupportCare #Oncology #QualityOfCare #CarePathway #SelfAssessment #PostCancer #CityHospitalCoordination
To go further, order a research or documentary watch
This article: An editorial production based on
experience enhanced by artificial intelligence - The English version of the site is an automatic translation: the French version is authoritative - Click on the image 