Barriers and facilitators to implementing geriatric assessment in daily oncology practice in Japan: A qualitative study using an implementation framework.

INTRODUCTION: Various guidelines recommend geriatric assessment (GA) for older adults with cancer, but it is not widely implemented in daily practice. This study uses an implementation framework to comprehensively and systematically identify multi-level barriers and facilitators to implementing GA in daily oncology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted 16 semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers in 10 designated cancer hospitals in Japan, using purposive and convenience sampling. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide collection and analysis of interview data following a deductive content analysis approach with consensual qualitative research methods. After coding the interview data, ratings were assigned to each CFIR construct for each case, reflecting the valence and strength of each construct relative to implementation success. Then, those constructs that appeared to distinguish between high-implementation hospitals (HI) where GA is routinely performed in daily practice and low-implementation hospitals (LI) where GA is performed only for research purposes or not at all were explored. RESULTS: Of the 24 CFIR constructs assessed in the interviews, 15 strongly distinguished between HI and LI. In HI, GA was self-administered (Adaptability), or administered via a mobile app with interpretation (Design Quality and Packaging). In HI, healthcare providers were strongly aware of the urgent need to change practice for older adults (Tension for Change) and recognized that GA was compatible with existing workflow as part of their jobs (Compatibility), whereas in LI, they did not realize the need to change practice, and dismissed GA as an extra burden on their heavy workload. In HI, usefulness of GA was widely recognized by healthcare providers (Knowledge & Beliefs about the Intervention), GA had a high priority (Relative Priority) and had strong support from hospital directors, managers, and nursing chiefs (Leadership Engagement), and multiple stakeholders were successfully engaged, including nurses (Key Stakeholders), peer doctors (Opinion Leaders), and those who drive implementation of GA (Champions). DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that successful implementation of GA should focus on not only individual beliefs about the usefulness of GA and the complexity of GA itself, but also organizational factors related to hospitals and the engagement of multiple stakeholders.