Interventions to Promote Safety Culture in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: There is limited guidance on how to effectively promote safety culture in health care settings. We performed a systematic review to identify interventions to promote safety culture, specifically in oncology settings. METHODS: Medical Subject Headings and text words for "safety culture" and "cancer care" were combined to conduct structured searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science for peer-reviewed articles published from 1999 to 2021. To be included, articles had to evaluate a safety culture intervention in an oncology setting using a randomized or nonrandomized, pre-post (controlled or uncontrolled), interrupted time series, or repeated-measures study design. The review followed PRISMA guidelines; quality of included citations was assessed using the ROBINS-I risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Eighteen articles meeting the inclusion criteria were retained, reporting on interventions in radiation (14 of 18), medical (3 of 18), or general oncology (1 of 18) settings. Articles most commonly addressed incident learning systems (7 of 18), lean initiatives (4 of 18), or quality improvement programs (3 of 18). Although 72% of studies reported improvement in safety culture, there was substantial heterogeneity in the evaluation approach; rates of reporting of adverse events (9 of 18) or Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Culture survey results (9 of 18) were the most commonly used metrics. Most of the studies had moderate (28%) or severe (67%) risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a growing evidence base describing interventions to promote safety culture in cancer care, definitive recommendations were difficult to make because of heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes. Implementation of incident learning systems seems to hold most promise.

Implementation of medication reconciliation in outpatient cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a process where providers work with patients to document and communicate comprehensive medication information by creating a complete medication list (best possible medication history (BPMH)) then reconciling it against what patient is actually taking to identify potential issues such as drug-drug interactions. We undertook an environmental scan of current MedRec practices in outpatient cancer care to inform a quality improvement project at our centre with the aim of 30% of patients having a BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating treatment with systemic therapy. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from 21 cancer centres across Canada, probing on current policies, and barriers and facilitators to MedRec. Guided by the findings of the scan, we then undertook a quality improvement project at our cancer centre, comprising six iterative improvement cycles. RESULTS: Most institutions interviewed had a process in place for collecting a BPMH (81%) and targeted patients initiating systemic therapy (59%); however, considerable practice variation was noted and completion of full MedRec was uncommon. Lack of resources, high patient volumes, lack of a common medical record spanning institutions and settings which limits access to medication records from external institutions and community pharmacies were identified as significant barriers. Despite navigating challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved 26.6% of eligible patients with a documented BPMH. However, uptake of full MedRec remained low whereby 4.7% of patients had a documented MedRec. CONCLUSIONS: Realising improvements to completion of MedRec in outpatient cancer care is possible but takes considerable time and iteration as the process is complex. Resource allocation and information sharing remain major barriers which need to be addressed in order to observe meaningful improvements in MedRec.

Staff Experiences With Remote Work in a Comprehensive Cancer Center During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Recommendations for Long-Term Adoption.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the rapid implementation of remote work, but few studies have examined the impact. We evaluated clinical staff experience with working remotely at a large, urban comprehensive cancer center in Toronto, Canada. METHODS: An electronic survey was disseminated between June 2021, and August 2021, via e-mail to staff who had completed at least some remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Factors associated with a negative experience were examined with binary logistic regression. Barriers were derived from a thematic analysis of open-text fields. RESULTS: Most respondents (N = 333; response rate, 33.2%) were age 40-69 years (46.2%), female (61.3%), and physicians (24.6%). Although the majority of respondents wished to continue remote work (85.6%), relative to administrative staff (admin), physicians (odds ratio [OR], 16.6; 95% CI, 1.45 to 190.14) and pharmacists (OR, 12.6; 95% CI, 1.0 to 158.9) were more likely to want to return on-site. Physicians were approximately eight times more likely to report dissatisfaction with remote work (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 1.4 to 51.6) and 24 times more likely to report that remote work negatively affected efficiency (OR, 24.0; 95% CI, 2.7 to 213.0); nurses were approximately seven times more likely to report the need for additional resources (OR, 6.5; 95% CI, 1.71 to 24.48) and/or training (OR, 7.02; 95% CI, 1.78 to 27.62). The most common barriers were the absence of fair processes for allocation of remote work, poor integration of digital applications and connectivity, and poor role clarity. CONCLUSION: Although overall satisfaction with working remotely was high, work is needed to overcome barriers to implementation of remote and hybrid work models in the health care setting.

Implementation and Outcomes of Virtual Care Across a Tertiary Cancer Center During COVID-19.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has burdened health care resources and disrupted care of patients with cancer. Virtual care (VC) represents a potential solution. However, few quantitative data support its rapid implementation and positive associations with service capacity and quality. Objective: To examine the outcomes of a cancer center-wide virtual care program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study applied a hospitalwide agile service design to map gaps and develop a customized digital solution to enable at-scale VC across a publicly funded comprehensive cancer center. Data were collected from a high-volume cancer center in Ontario, Canada, from March 23 to May 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcome measures were care delivery volumes, quality of care, patient and practitioner experiences, and cost savings to patients. Results: The VC solution was developed and launched 12 days after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 22 085 VC visits (mean, 514 visits per day) were conducted, comprising 68.4% (range, 18.8%-100%) of daily visits compared with 0.8% before launch (P < .001). Ambulatory clinic volumes recovered a month after deployment (3714-4091 patients per week), whereas chemotherapy and radiotherapy caseloads (1943-2461 patients per week) remained stable throughout. No changes in institutional or provincial quality-of-care indexes were observed. A total of 3791 surveys (3507 patients and 284 practitioners) were completed; 2207 patients (82%) and 92 practitioners (72%) indicated overall satisfaction with VC. The direct cost of this initiative was CAD$ 202 537, and displacement-related cost savings to patients totaled CAD$ 3 155 946. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that implementation of VC at scale at a high-volume cancer center may be feasible. An agile service design approach was able to preserve outpatient caseloads and maintain care quality, while rendering high patient and practitioner satisfaction. These findings may help guide the transformation of telemedicine in the post COVID-19 era.

Balancing Projects and Operations to Improve Organizational Capability.

Radiation therapy projects are necessary to improve organizational performance, implement new technology, and integrate evidence-based practices into the clinical environment. Although large-scale projects may have dedicated resources, relatively smaller scale projects may instead redirect resources from operational activities. This article explores how to facilitate continuous improvement by applying project management principles to health care projects at the level of the clinical team or department. Concepts described will focus on understanding the operational value of projects, common project management methodologies that can be applied, and strategies to resource smaller scale projects while continuing to meet operational demands.

Brachytherapy patient safety events in an academic radiation medicine program.

PURPOSE: To describe the incidence and type of brachytherapy patient safety events over 10 years in an academic brachytherapy program. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Brachytherapy patient safety events reported between January 2007 and August 2016 were retrieved from the incident reporting system and reclassified using the recently developed National System for Incident Reporting in Radiation Treatment taxonomy. A multi-incident analysis was conducted to identify common themes and key learning points. RESULTS: During the study period, 3095 patients received 4967 brachytherapy fractions. An additional 179 patients had MR-guided prostate biopsies without treatment as part of an interventional research program. A total of 94 brachytherapy- or biopsy-related safety events (incidents, near misses, or programmatic hazards) were identified, corresponding to a rate of 2.8% of brachytherapy patients, 1.7% of brachytherapy fractions, and 3.4% of patients undergoing MR-guided prostate biopsy. Fifty-one (54%) events were classified as actual incidents, 29 (31%) as near misses, and 14 (15%) as programmatic hazards. Two events were associated with moderate acute medical harm or dosimetric severity, and two were associated with high dosimetric severity. Multi-incident analysis identified five high-risk activities or clinical scenarios as follows: (1) uncommon, low-volume or newly implemented brachytherapy procedures, (2) real-time MR-guided brachytherapy or biopsy procedures, (3) use of in-house devices or software, (4) manual data entry, and (5) patient scheduling and handoffs. CONCLUSIONS: Brachytherapy is a safe treatment and associated with a low rate of patient safety events. Effective incident management is a key element of continuous quality improvement and patient safety in brachytherapy.

Collaboration in Health Care.

Health care involves the participation of patients, family, and a diverse team of often highly specialized health care professionals. Involvement of all these team members in a cooperative and coordinated way is essential to providing exceptional care. This article introduces key concepts relating to interprofessional collaborative teamwork. Approaches to measuring and studying collaboration and evidence demonstrating the benefits of collaboration are presented. The structural, psychological, and educational factors which may determine collaborative behaviour are described. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: By the end of this CME article, participants will be able to 1. Distinguish between multifunctional and interdisciplinary teams, 2. Define collaboration in a health care setting, 3. Describe the value of collaboration to patients, staff, and organizations, 4. Understand approaches to measuring collaboration, and 5. Identify factors that determine the ability of teams to collaborate. This article is a CME article and provides the equivalent of 2 hours of continuing education that may be applied to your professional development credit system. A 20-question multiple choice quiz follows this reading, and answers can be found on page 216. Please note that no formalized credit (Category A) is available from CAMRT.

Technical challenges of sparing infrahyoid swallowing organs at risk in oropharynx squamous cell cancer treated with IMRT.

This study reports clinical performance in the sparing of infrahyoid swallowing organs at risk (SWOARs) in oropharynx cancer intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans. Rates of meeting dose-volume planning goals are reported and compared with geometry-based estimates of what is achievable. This study also develops 3 measures of target-SWOAR geometry and tests their usefulness in providing geometry-based dose-volume planning goals. A total of 50 oropharynx cancer IMRT plans were reviewed. Success rates in meeting institutional dose-volume goals were determined for the glottic larynx (G), postcricoid pharynx (P), and esophagus (E). The following 3 measures of target-SWOAR geometry were investigated as methods of identifying geometry-based planning goals: presence of gross disease in neck levels 3 to 4, target-SWOAR overlap, and a 3-dimensional (3D) measure of target-SWOAR geometry. Locally advanced disease was predominant in this patient population with target volumes overlapping SWOARs in 68% to 98% of cases. Clinical rates of success in meeting dose-volume goals varied by SWOAR (16% to 82%) but compared well with estimated potentially achievable rates in most cases (14% average difference between clinical and potential). Cases grouped by the presence of levels 3 to 4 neck nodes or target-SWOAR overlap did not have significantly different SWOAR doses. Cases grouped using a 3D measure of target-SWOAR geometry differed significantly, providing useful geometry-based planning goals (e.g., mean Glottis dose <45Gy was achieved 19%, 44%, or 81% of the time in each of 3 groups). This study describes the technical challenge of sparing SWOARs and investigates several potential methods for grouping cases to assist with treatment plan evaluation. Quantifying the 3-D relationship between the targets and SWOARs is a promising way of approaching this complex problem. Data presented in this paper may be useful to evaluate treatment plans using objective geometry-based goals.

Patient and staff assessment of an audiovisual education tool for head and neck radiation therapy.

The purpose of this study was to understand and compare patient and staff perceptions of a video-based preparatory education tool for head and neck radiotherapy. Patients and staff completed a questionnaire assessing their perceptions of whether the education tool was relevant, clear, complete and reassuring. Staff rated the video's accuracy and anticipated impact on future patient information needs. Demographic information was collected. Open-ended questions were used to elicit additional feedback. Quantitative responses from 50 patients and 48 staff were very positive and not significantly different between the two groups. Content analysis of the qualitative data provided insight into the information and approaches valued by patients and staff and how these differed. Staff members were more critical of the production quality and completeness of information related to procedures and treatment side effects. Patients valued seeing procedures acted out and desired more information about what these experiences would feel like and how to engage in self-care. Although staff-driven development may be an effective method of designing the content and approach of a preparatory education video, care should be taken to consider differences between patient and staff perceptions of information needs.

The Effect of Registration Volume Extent on Residual Errors Assessed Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Radiation Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of the varying extent of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) registration volumes (RVs) on setup errors for head and neck (H&N) radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Daily CBCT images for 31 patients receiving H&N intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) were reviewed. Registrations using anatomically defined RVs with a fixed superior border at base of sella and varying inferior extent were used retrospectively to evaluate patient setup. The inferior extent was defined as the number of cervical bodies included, from none (C0) to six (C6). The frequency of residual displacements at four landmarks (clivus, vertebral bodies C5-C6, manubrium-sterni, and anterior body of mandible) was assessed. RESULTS: Expansion of the RVs inferiorly reduced the occurrence of residual displacements for the C5-C6 vertebral bodies (from 57% to 93% of fractions with residual displacements ≤ 3 mm) and increased the rate of simultaneous positioning of C5-C6 and clivus (from 41% to 76%). Maximum residual displacements for mandible (48%-64% ≤ 3 mm) and manubrium (73%-81% ≤ 3 mm) varied somewhat by the inferior extent of the RV. Residual displacements for clivus were small (88%-96% ≤ 3 mm) in all cases. Random and systematic errors were clinically acceptable for a 5-mm planning margin around the clinical targets. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, expansion of the RV inferiorly to include C6 will improve the positioning of structures in the C5-C6 region (adjacent nodal zones 3 and 4) without compromising clival positioning. Insufficient inferior extent of the RV reduces reliability of low neck positioning. Substantial variability can occur for structures not included in the RV. Based on these data, we use the C6 RV except in cases with planning concerns outside this volume.