Adapting an integrated care pathway for implementing electronic patient reported outcomes assessment in routine oncology care: Lessons learned from a case study.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: Details of the development and implementation of integrated care pathways (ICPs) in the context of electronic collection of patient reported outcomes (ePROs) for cancer patients are largely lacking in the literature. This study describes what, why and how decisions were made to adapt and implement an ePROs ICP for patients with lung cancer. METHODS: A consensus process was utilized, with the implementation advisory group including multidisciplinary representation from three participating hospitals, to identify local champions and adapt and incorporate the ePRO ICP into the local contexts. Engagement meetings were documented via meeting transcripts, and detailed notes from October 2019 to November 2020 were content-analysed to identify decision-making themes based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; workflows and process maps were reviewed and modified to integrate ePROs. RESULTS: In total, 55 engagement activities were held (24 meetings, 20 workshops 11 educational sessions), with n = 96 staff from multiple disciplines participating in the ePROs implementation through advisory meetings, process mapping, change management and staff education. Decisions were made regarding eligible patient cohorts to include, the process for onboarding patients onto the ePRO system, and follow-up and referral pathways. Rationales for decisions included alignment with existing workflows, utilizing available staff, minimizing staff and patient burden and maximizing patient engagement. CONCLUSION: Existing resources, staff input and technical and logistical reasons often guided the ICP decisions, highlighting the need for in-depth engagement across all stakeholders for optimal implementation of ePRO ICPs. The ePRO implementation required substantial dialogue and systematic resolution to reach agreement on the final processes. Adapting the local ICP through rigorous engagement facilitated the successful implementation of ePROs as business-as-usual at all three cancer centres. Involving all relevant stakeholders is critical to the successful adaptation of ICPs before their introduction into routine care.

Barriers and Facilitators to Integrative Oncology Services in Australia: A Changed Mind Set Required.

Objectives: This study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to integrative oncology (IO) service provision and access in Australia. Design: The study design was mixed method with two substudies: a cross-sectional national cancer service survey of public and private sectors; and focus group interviews and an online survey of cancer survivors. Triangulation analysis of qualitative and quantitative data was used to identify and interrogate meta-themes. Subjects: The cancer service response rate was 93.2% (n = 275/295); 71/275 (25.8%) provided IO. Thirty-three cancer survivors from Anglo-European, Arabic, Vietnamese, and Chinese backgrounds were interviewed, and 121 survivors answered the online survey. Results: IO gaps were substantial, with no services in many regions and cities; a lack of diversity and availability of therapeutic options, including culturally appropriate services; and a mismatch between the high use of natural health products by survivors and types of IO services provided. Two overlapping meta-themes were identified: "barriers and facilitators" and "peoples and institutions"; each with four subthemes, respectively, "access/provision, affordability/funding, information/evidence, and culture/values" and "cancer survivors, healthcare professionals, organizations, and policies." While affordability/funding was the greatest barrier to survivors and providers, solutions varied (e.g., building a stronger evidence-base, business model advice) and often conflicted (e.g., public verses private sector funding). The most insidious barrier was professional/corporate cultures and values that influenced hospital policies (or lack thereof), conceptions of evidence and the therapeutic alliance. Survivors called for a change of mindset in the culture of medicine and value-based health care. Conclusions: The barriers and facilitators to IO services were more complex than building the evidence-base and demonstrating value to justify funding. To achieve a better alignment of patients' preferences with service provision, providers require more guidance on clinical governance, business models, local service gaps, and interprofessional collaboration. National strategies and funding models are needed to ensure appropriate, equitable IO service provision.

Acupuncture for Cancer Related Pain: Protocol for a Pragmatic Randomised Wait-List Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture has been proved effective for cancer related pain (CRP) in China, America and some other countries. However, there is relative lack of evidence to support the use of acupuncture for CRP in Australia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for management of CRP in a real-world setting and to understand cancer patients' experience of undergoing acupuncture for CRP. METHODS: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial will be conducted in South Western Sydney Local Health District (SWSLHD) in NSW, Australia. Adults with cancer related pain (n = 106) will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive the acupuncture intervention up front versus after a wait list period of 4 weeks. Pain level (by Numerical Rating Scale), analgesic use, auricular acupressure frequency and adverse events will be assessed at baseline, mid-treatment and post-treatment. Expectancy on trial outcome (by Credibility and Expectancy questionnaire) will be assessed at baseline. The perspective of the participants (by an interview) will be recorded after the last intervention. EXPECTED OUTCOMES: We hypothesise that acupuncture will relieve cancer related pain at mid-treatment and post-treatment. We also hypothesise that few adverse events will be provoked by acupuncture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New-Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12620000325909).

Coverage of cancer services in Australia and providers' views on service gaps: findings from a national cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: In response to the increasing cancer prevalence and the evolving health service landscape across the public and private health sectors in Australia, this study aimed to map cancer services and identify factors associated with service provision and important service gaps. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional survey was conducted throughout 2016. Extensive search strategies identified Government or privately-owned, hospital or community-based healthcare organisations with dedicated cancer services. One nominated staff member from each organisation answered a purpose specific online/paper questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, standardised rates, and single level and multilevel multinomial logistic regression were used to analyse the data. Analysis was augmented with a qualitative descriptive analysis of open-ended questions. RESULTS: From the 295 eligible organisations with a cancer service in Australia, 93.2% participated in the survey. After adjusting for remoteness, for-profit companies were significantly more likely than Government operated services to provide only one or two types of cancer services (e.g. radiotherapy) in a limited range of settings (e.g. day hospital with no in-patient or home care) (p < 0.001) and less likely to provide comprehensive cancer services (p < 0.001). After adjusting for ownership and the respondent's role in the organisation, respondents located in remote regions of Australia were more likely to identify cancer services that are dependent upon specialist medical practitioners as the most important service gaps in their region (p = 0.003). Despite 76.0% of organisations across Australia offering some type of supportive care or survivorship services, providers identified this group of services as the most pressing service gaps in major cities, rural and remote regions alike (standardised rate: 47.9% (95%CI: 43.6-57.4%); p < .000). This included the need for improved integration, outreach and affordability. CONCLUSIONS: The broad range of cancer services, settings and ownership identified by this survey highlights the complexity of the Australian healthcare system that cancer survivors must navigate and the challenges of providing comprehensive cancer care particularly in rural and remote regions. Whilst the significant role of supportive care and survivorship services are increasingly being recognised, the findings from this survey support calls for innovative service models and funding mechanisms that expand the focus from preventing and treating cancer to supporting cancer survivors throughout the cancer continuum and promoting the delivery of integrated and equitable cancer care across the public and private sectors.

Integrative oncology and complementary medicine cancer services in Australia: findings from a national cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis are increasingly using complementary therapies and medicines (CM) to enhance the effectiveness of cancer treatment, manage treatment-related side effects, improve quality-of-life, and promote self-efficacy. In response to the increasing use and demand for CM by cancer patients, interest in the implementation of Integrative Oncology (IO) services that provide CM alongside conventional cancer care in Australia and abroad has developed. The extent that cancer services in Australia are integrating CM is uncertain. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify IO services in Australia and explore barriers and facilitators to IO service provision. METHODS: A national, cross-sectional survey of healthcare organisations was conducted in 2016. Organisations in the public and private sectors, including not-for-profit organisations that provided cancer care in hospital or community setting, were included. RESULTS: A response rate of 93.2% was achieved (n = 275/295). Seventy-one organisations (25.8%) across all states/territories, except the Northern Territory, offered IO albeit in a limited amount by many. Most common IO services included massage, psychological-wellbeing, and movement modalities in hospital outpatient or inpatient settings. There were only a few instances where biological-based complementary medicine (CM) therapies were prescribed. Funding was often mixed, including patient contributions, philanthropy, funding by the organisation, and volunteer practitioners. Of the 204 non-IO providers, 80.9% had never provided any IO service. Overwhelmingly, the most common barrier to IO was a lack of funding, followed by uncertainty about patient demand, choice of services, and establishing such services. Less-common barriers were a lack of evidence, and support from oncologists or management. More funding, education and training, and building the evidence-base for CM were the most commonly suggested solutions. CONCLUSION: IO is increasingly being provided in Australia, although service provision remains limited or non-existent in many areas. Mismatches appear to exist between low IO service provision, CM evidence, and high CM use by cancer patients. Greater strategic planning and policy guidance is indicated to ensure the appropriate provision of, and equitable access to IO services for all Australian cancer survivors.

Development of Health Pathways to Standardize Cancer Care Pathways Informed by Patient-Reported Outcomes and Clinical Practice Guidelines.

PURPOSE: High-quality symptom management and supportive care are essential components of comprehensive cancer care. We aimed to describe the development of an evidence-based automated decisional algorithm for patients with cancer that had specific, actionable, clinical, evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care, communication, and management. METHODS: We reviewed existing literature and clinical practice guidelines to identify priority domains of patient care and potential clinical recommendations. Two multidisciplinary clinical advisory groups used a two-stage consensus decision-making approach to determine domains of care and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and subsequently developed automated algorithms with clear clinical recommendations amendable to intervention in clinical settings. RESULTS: Algorithms were developed to inform management of patient symptoms, distress, and unmet needs. Three PRO measures were chosen: Distress Thermometer and problem checklist, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, and the Supportive Care Needs Survey-Screening Tool 9. PRO items were mapped to five domains of patient well-being: physical, emotional, practical, social and family, and maintenance of well-being. A total of 15 actionable clinical recommendations tailored to specific issues of concern were established. CONCLUSION: Using automated algorithms and clinical recommendations provides a platform for streamlining and systematizing the use of PROs to inform risk-stratified guideline-informed care. The series of algorithms, which set out systematized care pathways for the clinical care of patients with cancer, can be used to potentially inform patient-centered care.

Guidance for establishing an integrative oncology service in the Australian healthcare setting-a discussion paper.

There is an obvious mismatch between the high reported rates of use of traditional and complementary medicines (T&CM) by Australian cancer patients and cancer survivors and the low numbers of Australian cancer services integrating T&CM. An estimated 65% of Australian cancer patients use at least one form of T&CM. Over half use T&CM in conjunction with conventional cancer therapy. Yet, less than 20% of Australian hospital cancer care facilities provide access to T&CM. This compares to around 70% of UK cancer care facilities offering at least one T&CM therapy. Barriers to developing integrative oncology services include determining an appropriate service model and revenue structure; concerns with ethical and legal issues such as regulations and credentialing; and inadequate high-quality scientific evidence demonstrating safety and effectiveness, including concerns about the possibility of adversely affecting chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment. This paper aims to provide general guidance and practical strategies for those seeking to develop integrative oncology services in Australian cancer care facilities.