Pan-Canadian consensus recommendations for proton beam therapy access in Canada.

PURPOSE: Proton Beam Therapy (PBT)is a treatment option for select cancer patients. It is currently not available in Canada. Assessment and referral processes for out-of-country treatment for eligible patients vary by jurisdiction, leading to variability in access to this treatment for Canadian cancer patients. The purpose of this initiative was to develop a framework document to inform consistent and equitable PBT access for appropriate patients through the creation of pan-Canadian PBT access consensus recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A modified Delphiprocess was used to develop pan-Canadian recommendations with input from 22 PBT clinical and administrative experts across all provinces, external peer-review by provincial cancer and system partners, and feedback from a targeted community consultation. This was conducted by electronic survey and live discussion. Consensus threshold was set at 70% agreement. RESULTS: Fourconsensus rounds resulted in a final set of 27 recommendations divided into three categories: patient eligibility (n = 9); program level (n = 10); and system level (n = 8). Patient eligibility included: anatomic site (n = 4), patient characteristics (n = 3), clinical efficacy (n = 2). Program level included: regulatory and staff requirements (n = 5), equipment and technologies (n = 4), quality assurance (n = 1). System level included: referral process (n = 5), costing, budget impact and quality adjusted life years (n = 2), eligible patient estimates (n = 1). Recommendations were released nationally in June 2021 and distributed to all 43 cancer programs in Canada. CONCLUSION: A pan-Canadian consensus-building approach was successful in creating an evidence-based, peer-reviewed suite of recommendations thatsupportapplication of consistent clinical criteria to inform treatment options, facility set-up and access to high quality proton therapy.

The Capital Investment Strategy for Radiation therapy in Ontario: A Framework to Ensure Access to Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), formerly known as CCO, is the provincial governmental agency in Ontario, Canada responsible for developing radiation therapy-specific capital investment strategies, updated every 5 years, to ensure equitable access and to gain the highest value from these investments in infrastructure. These plans are informed by the changing landscape of health care delivery, technologic advancements affecting radiation therapy care, patient desire for care closer to home, and expected increases in utilization of radiation therapy services. In this article, we describe the development, model, and final recommendations of CCO's fifth radiation therapy capital investment strategy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A panel of multidisciplinary provincial experts, in combination with 2 patient and family advisors, developed planning principles to guide the development of a patient-centered strategy. Adaption of the previously used model for radiation therapy planning was used. RESULTS: The development of the capital investment strategy took place from fall 2017 to fall 2018. The model included 3 main factors: patient demand (including utilization targets), machine throughput, and machine demand and supply. The final recommendation is for an investment of 26 new radiation therapy machines in the province by 2028. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy plans for continued province-wide access to quality radiation therapy care and ensures machines are added to the system at the right place and in the right time. Ongoing data collection throughout this period is necessary to ensure the strategy achieves its goals and to allow for planning of future strategies.

Directly Improving the Quality of Radiation Treatment Through Peer Review: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Cancer Centers Across a Provincial Cancer Program.

PURPOSE: To describe the outcomes of peer review across all 14 cancer centers in Ontario. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified all peer-reviewed, curative treatment plans delivered in Ontario within a 3-month study period from 2013 to 2014 using a provincial cancer treatment database and collected additional data on the peer-review outcomes. RESULTS: Considerable variation was found in the proportion of peer-reviewed plans across the centers (average 70.2%, range 40.8%-99.2%). During the study period, 5561 curative plans underwent peer review. Of those, 184 plans (3.3%) had changes recommended. Of the 184 plans, the changes were major (defined as requiring repeat planning or having a major effect on planning or clinical outcomes, or both) in 40.2% and minor in 47.8%. For the remaining 12.0%, data were missing. The proportions of recommended changes varied among disease sites (0.0%-7.0%). The disease sites with the most recommended changes to treatment plans after peer review and with the greatest potential for benefit were the esophagus (7.0%), uterus (6.7%), upper limb (6.3%), cervix and lower limb (both 6.0%), head and neck and bilateral lung (both 5.9%), right supraclavicular lymph nodes (5.7%), rectum (5.3%), and spine (5.0%). Although the heart is an organ at risk in left-sided breast treatment plans, the proportions of recommended changes did not significantly differ between the left breast treatment plans (3.0%, 95% confidence interval 2.0%-4.5%) and right breast treatment plans (2.4%, 95% confidence interval 1.5%-3.8%). The recommended changes were more frequently made when peer review occurred before radiation therapy (3.8%) than during treatment (1.4%-2.8%; P=.0048). The proportion of plans with recommended changes was not significantly associated with patient volume (P=.23), peer-review performance (P=.36), or center academic status (P=.75). CONCLUSIONS: Peer review of treatment plans directly affects the quality of care by identifying important clinical and planning changes. Provincial strategies are underway to optimize its conduct in radiation oncology.

"I sleep better at night:" How peer review of radiation treatment plans indirectly improves quality of care across radiation treatment programs.

PURPOSE: Peer review of radiation oncology treatment plans is increasingly recognized as an important component of quality assurance in radiation treatment planning and delivery. Peer review of treatment plans can directly improve the quality of those plans and can also have indirect effects on radiation treatment programs. We undertook a systematic, qualitative approach to describing the indirect benefits of peer review, factors that were seen to facilitate or act as barriers to the implementation of peer review, and strategies to address these barriers across a provincial jurisdiction of radiation oncology programs (ROPs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Semistructured qualitative interviews were held with radiation oncology department heads and radiation therapy managers (or delegates) in all 14 ROPs in Ontario, Canada. We used a theoretically guided phenomenological qualitative approach to design and analyze the interview content. Themes were recorded by 2 independent reviewers, and any discordance was resolved by consensus. RESULTS: A total of 28 interviews were completed with 32 interviewees. Twenty-two unique themes addressed perceived benefits of peer review, relating to either peer review structure (n = 3), process (n = 9), or outcome (n = 10). Of these 22 themes, 19 related to indirect benefits to ROPs. In addition, 18 themes related to factors that facilitated peer review activities and 30 themes related to key barriers to implementing peer review were identified. Findings were consistent with, and enhanced the understanding of, previous survey-based assessments of the benefits and challenges of implementing peer review programs. CONCLUSIONS: Although challenges and concerns regarding the implementation of peer review were evident, the indirect benefits to radiation programs are numerous, far outweigh the implementation challenges, and strongly complement the direct individual-patient benefits that result from peer review quality assurance of radiation treatment plans.

Leveraging Mobile Technology to Improve Efficiency of the Consent-to-Treatment Process.

PURPOSE: This study reports on the implementation of an electronic consent-to-treatment system (e-Consent) in a busy radiation medicine program and compares it with the previous paper-based method of documenting patient consent. METHODS: A password-protected, electronic, e-Consent application was designed in-house and installed on iPad devices to document patient consent for radiation therapy treatments. A feasibility study, followed by a program-wide deployment of e-Consent, was executed. The effectiveness and impact of e-Consent on workflow were determined by comparing the number of problems arising from the paper-based consenting method with those from the e-Consent process. Staff satisfaction and perceived impact of e-Consent on workflow were determined by a program-wide survey of e-Consent users. RESULTS: The e-Consent completion rate was 94.2% (5,600 of 5,943 forms) 1 year after implementation, indicating successful uptake at the program level. Although the paper-based method of documenting patient consent was associated with an error rate of 7% (24 of 343 forms), e-Consent was associated with an error rate of 0.32% (18 of 5,600 forms) 1 year after deployment. Results of a 10-item e-Consent user survey indicated improvement in staff workflow and high overall satisfaction with e-Consent. CONCLUSION: e-Consent is more efficient than paper-based methods for documenting patient consent. Moreover, replacing paper-based consent methods with an electronic version facilitated an improved workflow and staff satisfaction. Efforts aimed at implementing e-Consent throughout the entire cancer program are currently underway.

Optimizing computed tomography simulation wait times in a busy radiation medicine program.

PURPOSE: An audit was conducted of patient schedules for computed tomography simulation (CT-Sim) scans within the Radiation Medicine Program at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre to investigate opportunities for improved efficiencies, enhancing process, reducing rescanning rates, and decreasing wait times. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 3-phased approach was undertaken to evaluate the current practice in the CT-Sim facility with a view toward implementing improvements. The first phase involved a review and assessment of the validity of current guidelines and protocols associated with 16 different disease sites. The second phase incorporated the use of a patient record and verification program MOSAIQ to capture the duration of each appointment. The last phase allocated additional time for patient-centered care and staff engagement. RESULTS: The audit revealed that efficiency could be achieved through staff training, updating protocols, and improving process coordination. With the exception of sarcoma, pediatric, and palliative patients who require unique management approaches, the duration for each CT-Sim appointment was successfully shortened for all disease sites by 22% to 33%, corresponding to a reduction of 10 to 15 minutes per appointment. Rescanning rates for patients requiring self-administered preparations before CT-Sim procedures were also significantly reduced by enhancing processes to increase patient compliance. Implementation of procedural changes resulted in an overall net gain of 3060 minutes, equivalent to 102 additional 30-minute CT-Sim appointment slots available for each month. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective evaluation, review, and optimization of CT-Sim guidelines and practices identified opportunities to shorten appointment timeslots, and reduce rescanning rates for CT-Sim procedures, thereby significantly shortening wait times and improving access to service for our patients.

Improving the Quality of Radiation Treatment for Patients in Ontario: Increasing Peer Review Activities on a Jurisdictional Level Using a Change Management Approach.

PURPOSE: Peer review of radiation treatment (RT) plans is a key component of quality assurance programs in radiation medicine. A 2011 current state assessment identified considerable variation in the percentage of RT plans peer reviewed across Ontario's 14 cancer centers.In response, Cancer Care Ontario launched an initiative to increase peer review of plans for patients receiving radical intent RT. METHODS: The initiative was designed consistent with the Kotter eight-step process for organizational transformation. A multidisciplinary team conducted site visits to promote and guide peer review and to develop education and implementation processes in collaboration with the centers. A centralized reporting infrastructure enabled the monitoring of the percentage of RT courses peer reviewed and the timing of peer review (before completion of 25%of treatment visits, after completion of >25%treatment visits). RESULTS: The initiative is ongoing, but early results indicate that the proportion of radical intent RT courses peer reviewed province wide increased from 43.5% (April 2013) to 68.0%(March 2015). This proportion is now a quality metric in Ontario and is publicly reported through the Cancer System Quality Index. The performance target for this metric was initially set at 50%(cases treated with radical intent) and revised to 60% in 2014. Provincial performance exceeded targets in both years (58.2% and 68.2%, respectively). Considerable variation was observed, however, in rates and timing of peer review among Cancer Care Ontario centers. CONCLUSION: This initiative demonstrates that a change management framework can be useful for planning and achieving substantial increases in jurisdictional peer review activities.

A survey of radiation treatment planning peer-review activities in a provincial radiation oncology programme: current practice and future directions.

OBJECTIVES: To describe current patterns of practice of radiation oncology peer review within a provincial cancer system, identifying barriers and facilitators to its use with the ultimate aim of process improvement. DESIGN: A survey of radiation oncology programmes at provincial cancer centres. SETTING: All cancer centres within the province of Ontario, Canada (n=14). These are community-based outpatient facilities overseen by Cancer Care Ontario, the provincial cancer agency. PARTICIPANTS: A delegate from each radiation oncology programme filled out a single survey based on input from their multidisciplinary team. OUTCOME MEASURES: Rated importance of peer review; current utilisation; format of the peer-review process; organisation and timing; case attributes; outcomes of the peer-review process and perceived barriers and facilitators to expanding peer-review processes. RESULTS: 14 (100%) centres responded. All rated the importance of peer review as at least 8/10 (10=extremely important). Detection of medical error and improvement of planning processes were the highest rated perceived benefits of peer review (each median 9/10). Six centres (43%) reviewed at least 50% of curative cases; four of these centres (29%) conducted peer review in more than 80% of cases treated with curative intent. Fewer than 20% of cases treated with palliative intent were reviewed in most centres. Five centres (36%) reported usually conducting peer review prior to the initiation of treatment. Five centres (36%) recorded the outcomes of peer review on the medical record. Thirteen centres (93%) planned to expand peer-review activities; a critical mass of radiation oncologists was the most important limiting factor (median 6/10). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncology peer-review practices can vary even within a cancer system with provincial oversight. The application of guidelines and standards for peer-review processes, and monitoring of implementation and outcomes, will require effective knowledge translation activities.