An evaluation of the impact for healthcare professionals after a leadership innovation fellowship program.

BACKGROUND: Leadership among healthcare professionals is required to address important healthcare challenges. The TAHSNp Health Professions Innovation Fellowship program ("Program") supports health professionals' leadership development by offering them an opportunity to lead a quality improvement project and participate in a curriculum focused on leading change. OBJECTIVE: As part of an outcome evaluation of the program, our objective was to determine the program's impact on leadership activities and roles undertaken by alumni. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to participants who completed the program in 2019 and 2020 at 6 and 18 months post-program to assess their leadership activities, leadership roles and the program's impact. Prospectively, we conducted internal and LinkedIn searches to identify current roles and obtained personal statements from program alumni of medical imaging health professions as complementary data sources for our program evaluation. RESULTS: At 6 and 18 months post-program, 47% - 59% of alumni respondents reported participation in hospital/organization committees, mentoring fellows or students, and presenting scholarly work inside or outside their organizations (6 months: N = 25, response rate = 39.1%; 18 months: N = 17, response rate = 26.6%). Additionally, at 18 months post program, 35% - 41% of alumni reported leading a new quality improvement initiative, pursuing formal education, and having a new leadership role. Most alumni reported their leadership activities were influenced by the program, with the largest impact occurring after 18 months post-program for leading a new quality improvement initiative (100%), career plans for the next five years (94%), mentoring fellowship staff (91%), presenting at their healthcare organization (91%) and a new leadership role (90%). Alumni reported the program helped build their confidence, create networking opportunities, leadership skill-building and interest in pursuing other roles beyond their clinical role. More specifically, alumni reported that leadership skills gained from the program were used in subsequent roles and responsibilities. CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS: The program evaluation demonstrates engaged alumni who undertake informal and formal leadership activities and roles. Our results are illustrative of the value-add as a result of healthcare organizations' investment in developing leadership among healthcare professionals. As continued engagement and career development are known to be important for staff retention and succession planning strategies, our findings are highly relevant given the current staffing challenges in healthcare.

Supporting Discovery and Inquiry: A Canadian Hospital's Approach to Building Research and Innovation Capacity in Point-of-Care Health Professionals.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Building capacity for research and innovation among point-of-care health professionals can translate into positive outcomes from the organization, staff, and patient perspective. However, there is not a widely accepted framework in place across academic hospitals to guide this work and measure impact. This article outlines one Canadian hospital's approach and provides a blueprint with appropriate indicators as a starting point and guide for organizations looking to develop and implement a practice-based research and innovation strategy. METHODS: An adapted framework was utilized to measure and track progress toward achievement of research and innovation strategic goals. The framework outlines key domains for research and capacity development and appropriate metrics. Data are reported from a 4-year period (2014-2018). RESULTS: The evaluation of the practice-based research and innovation portfolio identified several important factors that contribute to the success of embedding this strategy across a large academic teaching institution. These include using a collaborative leadership model, leveraging linkages, partnerships, and collaborations, and recognizing the academic contributions of health professionals engaging in research and innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging those who provide care directly to patients and families in research and innovation is critical to ensuring high-quality health outcomes and patient experience. Creative and innovative funding models, collaborative leadership, and partnerships with key stakeholders to support research and innovation are needed to ensure sustainability.

It Only Takes a Minute: The Development and Implementation of a Patient Experience Survey in Radiation Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Health care services use surveys to assess patient satisfaction and identify areas for improvement. While it is important to assess patient satisfaction to ensure their needs are met, lengthy questionnaires with closed-ended questions often focus on areas that may be considered important by institutions rather than patients. Recently, focus has shifted toward patient and caregiver experience, which institutions address via appreciative inquiry. The aim of this initiative was the development of a patient experience survey (PES) for radiation therapy patients and caregivers which would allow them to express their opinions and priorities. This patient feedback would then be addressed through quality improvement (QI) projects geared toward improving the overall patient and caregiver experience in radiation therapy. METHODS: A three-question minute survey was developed for use as a PES in the radiation therapy department of an academic oncology program located in a large metropolitan area. Feedback was obtained from patient education and person-centred care experts, as well as 10 radiation therapy patients. All feedback was incorporated to create the final PES; respondents rated their agreement on a five-point Likert scale with the statement "My overall experience in Radiation Therapy was great" and two open-ended questions allowed them to highlight departmental strengths and areas for improvement. An initial 3-month pilot was conducted where PESs were available on a self-serve basis to patients and caregivers in waiting areas and at radiation therapy treatment units. All responses were anonymous and completed surveys were returned via drop boxes. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to analyse responses. RESULTS: A total of 86 surveys were returned. Of those, 80 (93%) responded to the Likert scale question with 83% agreeing or strongly agreeing that their experience in radiation therapy was great. Several strengths were identified by respondents including teamwork, professionalism, and knowledge. Areas identified for improvement included management of appointment delays and communication of delays to patients, as well as environmental improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Although most respondents reported a favourable experience, this pilot demonstrated the minute survey can identify areas for improvement that can be addressed through QI. Including the patient perspective in QI is evidenced to enhance its outcome and aligns with institutional, provincial, and national strategic goals of improving the quality of cancer care through patient engagement.

Clinical Image Coregistration Variability on a Dedicated Radiosurgery Unit.

BACKGROUND: On a new dedicated radiosurgery unit enabling frameless treatments, a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) can be used for stereotactic definition. Since magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used to delineate target, reproducible MRI-to-CBCT coregistration is vital for accurate target localization. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate reproducibility of image coregistration in patient images. METHODS: Three types of coregistration (source-to-target) were analyzed: (1) MRI-to-CT; (2) MRI-to-CBCT; and (3) CT-to-CBCT. For each patient (n = 15), each coregistration type was independently performed 5 to 30 times (total: 465 coregistrations). Each coregistration yielded a transformation matrix, which was subsequently applied to transform every point in the source image to stereotactic coordinates. Two metrics were measured: (1) target registration error (TRE): mean distance between the registered position of each target point and the average registration position of that point; (2) compound registration error (CRE): mean spatial difference between stereotactic coordinates using (A) MRI-to-CT-to-CBCT and (B) MRI-to-CBCT. RESULTS: The median (range) of TRE was 0.11 mm (0.06-0.22 mm), 0.17 mm (0.10-0.36 mm), and 0.12 mm (0.08-0.21 mm) for MRI-to-CT, MRI-to-CBCT, and CT-to-CBCT, respectively. The TRE for MRI-to-CBCT was statistically higher than the other 2 methods (P < .01). The median (range) of CRE was 0.44 mm (0.22-0.59 mm). The maximum point CRE between patients ranged from 0.37-1.15 mm when considering all MRI points, but reduced to 0.31-0.90 mm within the central 16 cm. The CRE varied across the image volume, and typically was minimized near the center. CONCLUSION: The variation in image coregistration is within 0.2 mm, indicating a high degree of reproducibility. The CRE varies throughout the head but is submillimeter in the central 16 cm region.