What are the perceived unmet needs for patient care, education, and research among genitourinary cancer nurses in Australia? A mixed method study.

Objective: Specialist genitourinary (GU) nurses provide care to a broad and diverse group of patients diagnosed with kidney, bladder, prostate, testicular, adrenal, and penile cancer. The purpose of this study was to identify GU cancer nurse perspectives of perceived unmet needs in service provision, specific educational and research priorities. Methods: A concurrent mixed methods study design incorporated quantitative and qualitative data collection from the GU Cancer nurses workforce in Australia. Quantitative data collected using an electronic survey instrument and were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews and coded for thematic analysis. Ethical approval was gained. Results: Fifty responses were received from the electronic survey. 39/50 (78%) were female and 35 (70%) were metropolitan based. The highest domains of perceived unmet needs related to psychological/emotional needs - 17/23 (74%), intimacy needs - 15/23 (65%) and informational needs - 13/23 (57%). The themes from the qualitative interviews identified: (1) Patient needs - lack of tumour specific contact for cancer patients, fragmented delivery of cancer care, perception of better access to supportive care for public patients, lack of access to supportive care screening tools for needs assessment. (2) Educational needs - lack of GU specific cancer educational resources/learning opportunities and barriers to accessing educational opportunities. (3) Research priorities - impact on carers/partners, specific needs of different GU cancers, future focus on genetic testing/counselling, interventions for financial toxicity and development of models of care for geriatric GU patients. Conclusions: Specialist GU cancer nurses support a broad group of patients. Given the prominence of addressing unmet cancer care needs among people with GU cancers in this study, cancer nursing as a discipline alongside the multidisciplinary team, requires innovative solutions to overcome fragmented care which is often highly complex, and develop individualised and integrated care across the cancer care continuum. We encourage clinicians, researchers, policy makers, people affected by cancer, and their care networks, to continue to drive innovation by (1) Embedding an integrated approach to cancer nursing, (2) Implementation of shared care, (3) Implementation of patient navigation, (4) Embracing emerging technologies, (5) Future focus on education, and (6) Future focus on nurse-led research.

Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Medical Oncology Setting (the iPROMOS Study): Type II Hybrid Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have demonstrated that patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can improve mortality and morbidity outcomes when used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to prospectively investigate the implementation of PROMs in routine oncology. Outcomes measured included improved symptom detection, clinical response to symptom information, and health service outcomes. METHODS: Two of 12 eligible clinics were randomized to implement symptom PROMs in a medical oncology outpatient department in Australia. Randomization was carried out at the clinic level. Patients in control clinics continued with usual care; those in intervention clinics completed a symptom PROM at presentation. This was a pilot study investigating symptom detection, using binary logistic models, and clinical response to PROMs investigated using multiple regression models. RESULTS: A total of 461 patient encounters were included, consisting of 242 encounters in the control and 222 in the intervention condition. Patients in these clinics most commonly had head and neck, lung, prostate, breast, or colorectal cancer and were seen in the clinic for surveillance and oral or systemic treatments for curative, metastatic, or palliative cancer care pathways. Compared with control encounters, the proportion of symptoms detected increased in intervention encounters (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.99-1.11; P=.08). The odds of receiving supportive care, demonstrated by nonroutine allied health review, increased in the intervention compared with control encounters (odds ratio 3.54, 95% CI 1.26-9.90; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of PROMs in routine care did not significantly improve symptom detection but increased the likelihood of nonroutine allied health reviews for supportive care. Larger studies are needed to investigate health service outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000398202; https://tinyurl.com/3cxbemy4.

Development of person-centred quality indicators for aged care assessment services in Australia: A mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: This study developed a proposed set of person-centred quality indicators (PC-QIs) for services that assess older adults' care and support needs to determine their eligibility to receive government-funded aged care services in Australia. Individual proposed PC-QIs amenability for change within current organizational structures were explored. Barriers and opportunities to adapt service elements of the aged care assessment service to better align with the intent of the proposed PC-QIs were identified. METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted over five phases. A scoping review identified domains of quality for aged care services as perceived by older adults. Service elements of an aged care assessment service were mapped alongside quality domains informing key attributes of each quality domain. Self-determination theory was used to formulate each proposed PC-QI to align with key attributes and quality domains. Consultation with a consumer group enabled revision of the proposed PC-QIs. A focus group with clinicians evaluated the amenability of each proposed PC-QI for change and identified barriers and opportunities to better align service elements with older adults' perceptions of quality. Results were informed by qualitative and quantitative data from a structured focus group. Focus group discussions were audio recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data were analyzed using a deductive thematic approach by two independent researchers. RESULTS: Twenty-four proposed PC-QIs were developed. Refinement to descriptors of the proposed PC-QIs were made by the consumer group (n = 18) and all were affirmed as being amenable to change by aged care assessors. Barriers in meeting the intent of the proposed PC-QIs were identified across five domains including: health care staff knowledge (18.7%; n = 3); clear communication (31%; n = 5); person-centred approach (18.7%; n = 3); respect for client (18.7%; n = 3); and collaborative partnership with client (12%; n = 2). Participants made 21 recommendations. Of the five service elements in delivering an aged care assessment service, barriers in meeting the intent of the proposed PC-QIs were identified at the intake and booking of an assessment and during the assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations identified provide assessment services guidance on ways to adapt service elements to better align with older adults' perceptions of quality. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and carers were involved as collaborators in this project at the protocol stage which included participating in discussions regarding the refining and modification of the protocol, refinement of the proposed PC-QIs, data collection forms and supplementary information for participants.

Person-centred quality indicators for Australian aged care assessment services: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Aged Care Assessment Teams are the assessment component of the Australian aged care system. Their purpose is to undertake needs-based assessments to determine an older person's eligibility for, and access to Commonwealth-funded aged care services. There are no measures that tell us if the aged care assessment service is of high quality from the perspective of the person being assessed. Quality measures have been developed and introduced in Australian residential aged care facilities. These however, have not considered the perspectives of those living in this setting. Quality measures for home care services have also been recommended. This research aims to address the gap in person-centred quality measures by asking current and future service users of aged care assessment services to vote on the importance of 24 person-centred quality indicators (PC-QIs), that were developed in a previous study using a modified Delphi method approach supported by engagement with a consumer led Advisory Board. METHODS: This mixed methods study used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to reach consensus on a final set of PC-QIs. Twenty-five community-dwelling older people in Brisbane, Australia, voted on the importance of 24 PC-QIs using a five-point Likert scale. A consensus statement for PC-QI elimination was determined prior to participants voting. Voting was undertaken with participants individually either face-to-face or via telephone, in their homes. To capture any narrative provided by participants regarding each PC-QI, participant voting sessions were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. Quantitative data from participant votes for each PC-QI were calculated and statistically described by median, interquartile range, consensus met, percentile, percentile rank, rank order, median and standard deviation. PC-QIs were then assessed against the consensus statement for elimination and rank ordered according to importance to participants. Content analysis of qualitative data from audio transcriptions was conducted to determine the presence of certain words supporting participant votes for each PC-QI. RESULTS: No PC-QIs were eliminated during voting. Variation existed among participants' ratings of importance for each PC-QI. Final quality domains, their respective title, quality indicator descriptor and supporting qualitative data are presented. Five PC-QIs had a median of five, no votes recorded below four, an interquartile range of zero, and a rank order score of one, two and four, out of a possible ten, indicating they were of highest importance to participants. CONCLUSION: Participants reached consensus on 24 evidence-based PC-QIs that represent measures of quality of aged care assessment services from the perspectives of current and future service users.

In Australia, people 65 years or over, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 50 years or over, can apply to access aged care services funded by the Australian government (Australian Government, Department of Health and Aged Care. 2021-2022 Report on the Operation of the Aged Care Act 1997, 2022). Services the government funds include supporting older people to live at home, residential aged care if the person can't live at home, and short-term rehabilitation (Australian Government, Department of Health and Aged Care. 2021-2022 Report on the Operation of the Aged Care Act 1997, 2022). To access these services, a person needs to fill out an application form and undergo an aged care assessment. Another person can help complete the application. The purpose of the aged care assessment is to assess the person's needs to determine what aged care services they are eligible to access. There are no measures that tell us if the aged care assessment service is of high quality from the perspective of the person being assessed. Twenty-four measures of quality were developed in a previous study with support from a consumer Advisory Board (Smith S, Travers C, Roberts N, Martin­Khan M. Health Expect, 2024). This study asked 25 older people living in Brisbane, the importance of the 24 measures, to decide if any should be eliminated. People were asked to vote using a number scale where number one meant it 'wasn't important', and five meant it was 'extremely important.' A consensus statement was agreed to decide if a measure would be eliminated. All measures were voted as being important with no measure eliminated. Quality Measures voted as being important included receiving assessments from knowledgeable health care staff, who treated them with dignity and respect, adopted a person-centred approach, established a collaborative relationship, and communicated clearly.

Factors Influencing Integration and Usability of Model-Informed Precision Dosing Software in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial dosing in critically ill patients is challenging and model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) software may be used to optimize dosing in these patients. However, few intensive care units (ICU) currently adopt MIPD software use. OBJECTIVES: To determine the usability of MIPD software perceived by ICU clinicians and identify implementation barriers and enablers of software in the ICU. METHODS: Clinicians (pharmacists and medical staff) who participated in a wider multicenter study using MIPD software were invited to participate in this mixed-method study. Participants scored the industry validated Post-study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ, assessing software usability) and Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2, assessing factors impacting software acceptance) survey. Semistructured interviews were used to explore survey responses. The framework approach was used to identify factors influencing software usability and integration into the ICU from the survey and interview data. RESULTS: Seven of the eight eligible clinicians agreed to participate in the study. The PSSUQ usability scores ranked poorer than the reference norms (2.95 vs. 2.62). The TAM2 survey favorably ranked acceptance in all domains, except image. Qualitatively, key enablers to workflow integration included clear and accessible data entry, visual representation of recommendations, involvement of specialist clinicians, and local governance of software use. Barriers included rigid data entry systems and nonconformity of recommendations to local practices. CONCLUSION: Participants scored the MIPD software below the threshold that implies good usability. Factors such as availability of software support by specialist clinicians was important to participants while rigid data entry was found to be a deterrent.

Clinical research nursing pathways: The development and evaluation of a nursing research internship program using the RE-AIM framework.

Background: In 2018 a Nursing Research Internship program was started within a major referral and tertiary teaching centre in Australia. Aim: We aimed to evaluate the first 12 months of the program using an implementation science framework. Methods: This was a qualitative study. Following ethical approval n = 20 semi -structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants included nurses with clinical, research and management roles who had engaged in or supported a Nursing Research Internship program. The Framework Method was conducted to analyse the findings. Results: Key themes identified included 'What is the impact of a Nursing Research Internship program?'; 'Why do a Nursing Research Internship program?'; 'How do we do a Nursing Research Internship program?'; 'How do we sustain a Nursing Research Internship program?'. Positive impacts were identified for clinical nurses and their teams, for the hospital and health service, and for patients and families. Identified key components included protected research time, specialist support (including library, statistics, health economist, implementation scientist), regulatory support (ethics and governance procedures) and access to a computer and IT resources. The Nursing Research Internship program required support from nurse clinicians, nurse managers and nurse academics. Conclusion: A structured Nursing Research Internship program supports clinical nurses to answer research questions identified directly from clinical practice.

Exploring Unmet Needs in Prostate Cancer Care: A Cross-sectional Descriptive Study.

Background and objective: Prostate cancer, the most common cancer among men worldwide, has significant impact on quality of life. Supportive care needs for those affected by prostate cancer are not well understood. This study aims to describe patient-reported unmet needs and explore supportive care priorities of men treated for prostate cancer. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to all men who had accessed prostate cancer services (including surgical, radiation, and medical oncology treatment modalities) at a tertiary hospital. The survey included qualitative questions exploring patient experience and a validated patient-reported outcome measure (Supportive Care Needs Survey Short Form 34). Clinical information was collected. Analyses included, descriptive statistics, multivariate logistic regression models and qualitative analyses using a framework method. Key findings and limitations: A total of 162 participants provided survey data. Domains about information, self-management, and sexual function were the highest ranked items with unmet needs. A qualitative analysis also identified "relationships", "information", and "the value of hindsight" constructs. Participants who identified three or more unmet needs expressed treatment regret (odds ratio 5.92, 1.98-22.23, p = 0.01). Conclusions and clinical implications: Understanding the unmet needs of patients may better inform supportive care interventions that address what is important to patients. Importantly, participants valued relationships. There may be opportunities to better meet the needs of patients by improving access to information and self-management resources, particularly around sexuality. Further research is warranted. Patient summary: Prostate cancer and its treatment impacts are not well understood. Prioritisation of relationships and improving access to information and self-management resources are important. Further attention to prostate cancer supportive care in clinical practice is needed.

An mHealth application for chronic vascular access: A multi-method evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare consumers require diverse resources to assist their navigation of complex healthcare interactions, however, these resources need to be fit for purpose. AIM: In this study, we evaluated the utility, usability and feasibility of children, families and adults requiring long-term intravenous therapy using a recently developed mobile health application (App), intravenous (IV) Passport. DESIGN: Multi-site, parallel, multi-method, prospective cohort study. METHODS: A multi-site, multi-method study was carried out in 2020-2021, with 46 participants (20 adults, 26 children/family) reporting on their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months. RESULTS: Overall, utility rates were acceptable, with 78.3% (N = 36) using the IV Passport over the follow-up period, with high rates of planned future use for those still active in the project (N = 21; 73%), especially in the child/family cohort (N = 13; 100%). Acceptability rates were high (9/10; IQR 6.5-10), with the IV Passport primarily used for documenting new devices and complications. Thematic analysis revealed three main themes (and multiple subthemes) in the qualitative data: Advocacy for healthcare needs, Complexity of healthcare and App design and functionality. CONCLUSION: Several recommendations were made to improve the end-user experience including 'how to' instructions; and scheduling functionality for routine care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The IV Passport can be safely and appropriately integrated into healthcare, to support consumers. IMPACT: Patient-/parent-reported feedback suggests the Intravenous Passport is a useful tool for record-keeping, and positive communication between patients/parents, and clinicians. REPORTING METHOD: Not applicable. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Consumers reported their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months.

An mHealth application for chronic vascular access: Consumer led co-creation.

PURPOSE: Children with chronic and complex health conditions frequently need intravenous devices. The current approach to intravenous device selection, insertion, and monitoring is inconsistent, and healthcare consumers are often negatively affected by siloed health information, and poor future planning. Despite child- and family-centred care being recognised as a pillar of paediatric nursing care, limited implementation for vascular access device planning and management is evident. DESIGN AND METHODS: To address this, we conducted a multi-phased approach to co-create, then evaluate, a mobile health (mHealth) application: IV Passport. Co-creation involved a prioritisation survey, followed by a Passport advisory panel consensus meeting. Following confirmation of the required content and features of the Passport, the mHealth application was designed and content validation achieved via survey. RESULTS: The prioritisation survey yielded recommendations for seven features (e.g., graphical presentations of current/past devices). Content for nine device types (e.g., totally implanted ports) was suggested, each with 10 related items (e.g., insertion site). Content items for device-associated complications, future vascular access plans, and educational resources were also suggested. Following design, the application was released through Apple and Android platforms; and adapted to a paper version. Content validation was established; 100% strongly agreed the application was easy to use; 80% agreed/strongly agreed that they would recommend the Passport to others. CONCLUSION: IV Passport embodies effective child- and family-centred care through consumer co-creation to empower patients and families manage vascular access devices. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: IV Passport remains active; and can be utilised across many healthcare settings and patient populations.

The use of patient reported outcome measures in oncology clinical practice across Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: While there is increasing evidence on the benefits of PROMs in cancer care, the extent of routine collection and use of PROMs in clinical cancer practice across Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) is unknown. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of PROMs use in routine clinical cancer care in ANZ. METHODS: An online survey was designed and disseminated via professional societies and organisations using a snowball sampling approach to clinical and health administration professionals managing cancer care in ANZ. A poster advertising the study was also circulated on professional social media networks via LinkedIn and Twitter inviting health professionals from ANZ to participate if they were using or intending to use PROMs in clinical cancer practice. Responders opted into the survey via the survey link. RESULTS: From 132 survey views, 91(response rate, 69%) respondents from 56 clinical practices across ANZ agreed to participate in the survey, and of these 55 (n = 55/91, 60%) respondents reported collecting PROMs within their clinical practice. The majority of the respondents were from the State of New South Wales in Australia (n = 21/55, 38%), hospital (n = 35/55, 64%), and a public setting (n = 46/55, 83%). PROMs were collected in all cancer types (n = 21/36, 58%), in all stages of the disease (n = 31/36, 86%), in an adult population (n = 33/36, 92%), applied in English (n = 33/36, 92%), and used to facilitate communication with other reasons (27/36, 75%). A geospatial map analysis provided insights into the variation in PROMs uptake between the two countries and in certain jurisdictions within Australia. This study also highlights the limited resources for PROMs implementation, and a lack of systematic priority driven approach. CONCLUSION: PROM use across Australia and New Zealand seems variable and occurring predominantly in larger metropolitan centres with limited standardisation of approach and implementation. A greater focus on equitable adoption of PROMs in diverse cancer care settings is urgently needed.

Patient adherence to patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion in clinical care: current understanding and future recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used as an assessment and monitoring tool in clinical practice. However, patient adherence to PROMs completions are typically not well documented or explained in published studies and reports. Through a collaboration between the International Society for Quality-of-Life Research (ISOQOL) Patient Engagement and QOL in Clinical Practice Special Interest Groups (SIGs) case studies were collated as a platform to explore how adherence can be evaluated and understood. Case studies were drawn from across a range of clinically and methodologically diverse PROMs activities. RESULTS: The case studies identified that the influences on PROMs adherence vary. Key drivers include PROMs administeration methods within a service and wider system, patient capacity to engage and clinician engagement with PROMs information. It was identified that it is important to  evaluate  PROMs integration and adherence from multiple perspectives. CONCLUSION: PROM completion rates are an important indicator of patient adherence. Future research prioritizing an understanding of PROMs completion rates by patients is needed.

Exploring equity in cancer treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation for culturally and linguistically diverse migrant populations living in Queensland, Australia: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is strong international evidence documenting inequities in cancer care for migrant populations. In Australia, there is limited information regarding cancer equity for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) migrant populations, defined in this study as migrants born in a country or region where English is not the primary language. This study sought to quantify and compare cancer treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation measures between CALD migrant and Australian born cancer populations. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted utilising electronic medical records at a major, tertiary hospital. Inpatient and outpatient encounters were assessed for all individuals diagnosed with a solid tumour malignancy in the year 2016 and followed for a total of five years. Individuals were screened for inclusion in the CALD migrant or Australian born cohort. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were used to compare treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation measures. Sociodemographic measures included age, sex, post code, employment, region of birth and marital status. RESULTS: A total of 523 individuals were included, with 117 (22%) in the CALD migrant cohort and 406 (78%) in the Australian-born cohort. CALD migrants displayed a statistically significant difference in time from diagnosis to commencement of first treatment for radiation (P = 0.03) and surgery (P = 0.02) and had 16.6 times higher odds of declining recommended chemotherapy than those born in Australia (P = 0.00). Survivorship indicators favoured CALD migrants in mean time from diagnosis to death, however their odds of experiencing disease progression during the study period were 1.6 times higher than those born in Australia (P = 0.04). Service utilisation measures displayed that CALD migrants exhibited higher numbers of unplanned admissions (P = < 0.00), longer cumulative length of those admissions (P = < 0.00) and higher failure to attend scheduled appointments (P = < 0.00). CONCLUSION: This novel study has produced valuable findings in the areas of treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation for a neglected population in cancer research. The differences identified suggest potential issues of institutional inaccessibility. Future research is needed to examine the clinical impacts of these health differences in the field of cancer care, including the social and institutional determinants of influence.

How can we meet the needs of patients, their families and their communities? A qualitative study including clinicians, consumer representatives, patients, and community members.

BACKGROUND: The Diversity Working Group was formed in response to Australian Quality and Safety Health Care Standards that require organisations plan service delivery that incorporates information about the diversity of consumers, and those at higher risk of harm. METHODS: A qualitative gap analysis was conducted by a team from varied professional backgrounds including a clinician researcher, a nurse researcher with expertise in culturally and linguistically diverse care and a consumer representative with expertise in advocacy and carer representation. Qualitative questions were co-designed, using a person-centred care lens. Community organisation members, and clinicians and patients from both ambulatory and inpatient areas were approached. Responses were coded independently and synthesised using a Framework Methodology. RESULTS: In total 3 community organisation members, 40 clinicians and 30 patients consented to participate in the qualitative study over a period of three weeks. There were three key themes across responses, 'What are diverse needs?'; 'Assigning people to a group does not address a need'; 'Unplanned care makes people feel vulnerable'. Those patients who are isolated, for any number of reasons, were identified as at greater risk of harm. CONCLUSION: Taking a person-centred approach can potentially better understand the needs of patients and communities so that this information can be incorporated into health service delivery. Resources are needed to support patients and their families at times of transition care, particularly when care is unplanned.

Rethinking cancer prevention for migrant populations in Queensland, Australia: A retrospective cohort study comparing culturally and linguistically diverse and Australian born cancer patients.

International evidence suggests migrants experience significant cancer inequities. In Australia, there is limited information assessing equity for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) migrant populations, particularly in cancer prevention. Cancer inequities are often explained by individualistic, behavioural risk factors; however, scarce research has quantified or compared engagement with cancer prevention strategies. A retrospective cohort study was conducted utilising the electronic medical records at a major, quaternary hospital. Individuals were screened for inclusion in the CALD migrant or Australian born cohort. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were used to compare the cohorts. 523 individuals were followed (22% were CALD migrants and 78% Australian born). Results displayed that CALD migrants made up a larger proportion of infection-related cancers. Compared to Australian born, CALD migrants had lower odds of having a smoking history (OR = 0.63, CI 0.401-0.972); higher odds of 'never drinking' (OR = 3.4, CI 1.473-7.905); and lower odds of having breast cancers detected via screening (OR = 6.493, CI 2.429-17.359). Findings affirm CALD migrants' low participation in screening services but refute the assertion that CALD migrants are less engaged in positive health practices, enabling cancer prevention. Future research should examine social, environmental, and institutional processes and move beyond individualistic, behavioural explanations for cancer inequities.

Using Implementation Science in Nursing Research.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical research continues to build knowledge that can potentially improve clinical and health service outcomes; however, integrating evidence into routine care is challenging, resulting in a knowledge practice gap. The field of implementation science is a resource available for nurses to translate evidence into their practice. This article aims to provide nurses with an overview of implementation science, illustrate its value integrating evidence into practice, and show how it can be applied with high rigor in nursing research practice. DATA SOURCES: A narrative synthesis of the implementation science literature was conducted. A series of case studies were purposively selected to demonstrate the application of commonly used implementation theories, models, and frameworks across health care settings relevant to nursing. These case studies demonstrate how the theoretical framework was applied and how the outcomes of the work reduced the knowledge practice gap. CONCLUSION: Implementation science theoretical approaches have been used by nurses and multidisciplinary teams to better understand the gap between knowledge and practice for better informed implementation. These can be used to understand the processes involved, identify the determinants at play, and undertake an effective evaluation. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: By using implementation science research practice, nurses can also build a strong foundation of evidence about nursing clinical practice. As an approach, implementation science is practical and can optimize the valuable nursing resource.

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on genitourinary and prostate cancer care and clinical trials: A qualitative exploration of the Australian and New Zealand experience.

PURPOSE: This qualitative study aimed to understand the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic from March to November 2020 on healthcare delivery and clinical trials for genitourinary (GU) cancers in Australia. METHODS: Annually a pre-conference workshop is hosted by the Australian New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group for supportive care health professionals. In November 2020, those that selected to attend were invited to participate in a focus group. Workshop and focus group discussions were recorded and transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Seventy-two individuals involved in GU cancer care and clinical trials took part. Participants described negative changes to GU cancer care and clinical trials from the pandemic due to reduced clinical services and increased wait times. Trial recruitment was paused temporarily during lockdowns, and standard treatment protocols were used to limit hospital visits. Trial process changes included electronic capture of informed consent, home delivery of oral medications, and delegations of assessments. These changes increased administrative activity for clinical trial teams and Human Research Ethics Committees. A transition to telehealth enabled continuity of service delivery and trials but reduced the opportunity for face-to-face patient consultations with increasing concern about the failure to detect supportive care needs. CONCLUSION: The pandemic has prompted a critical review of service delivery and clinical trials for people with GU cancers.

Scoping to analyze oncology trial participation in Australia.

Equity in oncology clinical trial participation has been declared a global priority. Australia is a key stakeholder in the global clinical trials sphere and managed to maintain high clinical trial activity during the COVID pandemic. Despite these successes, there is paucity of understanding about what influences clinical trial participation in Australia. In the international context, systematic reviews have highlighted that sociodemographic barriers, access to health care, clinical trial inclusion criteria, and attitudes of physicians and patients are factors which influence oncology trial participation. Exploring the factors in Australian health services which influence trial participation is now of significant importance. The lack of clear evidence directly highlights a need to assess the factors that influence oncology trial participation in Australia. We call for review of existing data to identify future directions in Australia which will potentially give deeper insights for the international clinical trial community.

Factors that influence clinical trial participation by patients with cancer in Australia: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials are the backbone of research. It is well recognised that patient participation in clinical trials can be influenced by a myriad of factors such as access to a clinical trial, restrictive trial eligibility criteria and perceptions held by patients or physicians about clinical trials. Australia is a key stakeholder in the global clinical trials sphere. This scoping review protocol aims to identify and map the current literature describing factors that influence clinical trial participation of patients with cancer, in Australia. METHODS AND ANALYSES: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews will be used to conduct this review. Four electronic databases will be systematically searched for relevant published literature on this topic, as a collaborative process involving the lead investigator and a health science librarian. We will hand search of citations and reference lists of the included papers, and a grey literature search through Google scholar, Grey Literature Report, Web of Science Conference Proceedings. All published papers pertaining to patients diagnosed with solid organ or haematological malignancies will be included. Studies which did not involve patients from Australia will also be excluded. A customised data extraction tool will be pilot tested and refined, and subsequently two independent reviewers will perform data screening and extraction. Results will be collated and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews: PRISMA-Scoping Reviews. Quantitative data will be presented using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be synthesised using thematic analyses. This scoping review does not require ethical approval as the methodology focuses on analysing information from available published data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders including consumers, clinicians, professional organisations and policy-makers through peer-reviewed publications and national and international conferences.

Teletrials, the new norm? Expert recommendations for teletrials into the future: Findings from the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Clinical Trial Research Professionals Group Workshop.

INTRODUCTION: The Australasian Teletrial Model was piloted in co-funded sites across Australia. The purpose was to extend the reach of clinical trials using telemedicine to improve equity and access to this treatment pathway for oncology patients. Experts across Australia gathered to share the learnings of implementation so that future directions can be effective and sustainable. METHODS: The 1-day workshop was attended in person and virtually. Attendees were invited to analyze and disseminate the results. Recordings from the presentations were coded independently by three researchers and synthesized. The results were sent to the authorship team for further review to build consensus on the findings in three drafts. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified: "Being on the Same Page," "Building Foundations," "Key Roles in Teletrials," and "Incentives." Although there were many successes that were accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, there is work still to be done. CONCLUSION: The Australasian Teletrial Model has been identified as acceptable and feasible. Future directions need to continue to work on streamlining regulatory processes, implementation and monitoring, and build knowledge to further build networks across Australia.