Redesign of radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a proposal for universal healthcare systems.

Aim: This study was designed to recommend strategies to improve prostate patients' access to radiotherapy treatment in the Brazilian Unified Health System, along with a cost-tool to support radiotherapy care pathways' lead times and costs. Methods: Data was collected prospectively from patients with prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy in two Brazilian centers to provide data to apply design thinking and process reengineering techniques. The current status of the radiotherapy pathway was determined and the length of time taken for in-hospital activities was measured using data exported from ARIA®. Interviews with patients were used to estimate their waiting periods. This provided the data used to provide recommended strategies and the cost tool based on time-driven activity-based costing. The strategies were classified according to priority. Results: Data from 47 patients were analyzed. The mean interval from diagnosis to start of radiotherapy was 349 days (SD581), and the mean interval from seeking medical attention to starting treatment was 635 days (SD629). Twelve strategies affecting in-hospital processes and 11 impacting patients' care pathways and experiences are recommended, mostly focused on system improvement opportunities. A time-driven activity-based costing monitoring using data extracted from ARIA was coded and can be used by centers as a cost assessment guide. Conclusion: This study uses reengineering and design techniques to introduce priority strategies to allow more efficient and patient-centered radiotherapy.

Modelo de gerenciamento de projetos aplicado a pesquisa clínica / Project management model for clinical research

Objetivo: Desenvolver um modelo para o gerenciamento de projetos em centros de pesquisa clínica (CPCs) no cenário público-privado e privado. Métodos: Estudo transversal prospectivo com aplicação de um questionário específico em CPCs no Brasil. Esse instrumento avaliou a aplicação prática das 10 áreas de conhecimento do Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®) (gerenciamento da integração, do escopo, do tempo, de custos, de qualidade, de recursos humanos, de comunicações, de riscos, de aquisições e partes interessadas) com relação à prática diária da pesquisa clínica nos CPC do país. Resultados: Dos 195 centros de pesquisa elegíveis, 55 responderam ao questionário completo. O profissional com o cargo de gerente de projetos é inexistente em 37 centros (67,3%) ativos e não há Escritório de Gerenciamento de Projetos (EGP) em 41 centros (74,5%). O controle de despesas e receitas é realizado por 50 centros (90,9%), entretanto 28 (50,9%) realizam avaliação da rentabilidade. Quanto ao gerenciamento da qualidade, 28 (50,9%) não têm parâmetros de qualidade implantados e 11 (40,7%) não realizam auditoria interna. Falhas de comunicação estão presentes em 48 centros (87,2%). A partir da avaliação da aplicação prática das 10 áreas de conhecimento do Guia PMBOK®, foi desenvolvido um modelo de gerenciamento de projetos com aplicabilidade aos centros. Conclusões: É possível que os centros tenham melhor definição do escopo de cada projeto, custos e prazos possuam baixa margem de variabilidade, se estabeleça boa comunicação entre as partes envolvidas e que o impacto econômico do gerenciamento possa ser reconhecido.

Objective: To develop a model for the management of research projects, in public-private and private scenarios. Methods: Prospective cross-sectional study with the application of a specific questionnaire for research centers in the country. This instrument evaluated the practical application of the 10 areas of Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®) (management of integration, scope, time, costs, quality, human resources, communications, risks, acquisitions and stakeholders) of in relation to the daily practice of clinical research in the country's research centers. Results: Of the 195 eligible research centers, 55 centers answered the complete questionnaire. The professional with the position of project manager does not exist in 37 active centers (67.3%), there is no project management office (PMO) in 41 centers (74.5%). The control of expenses and revenues is carried out by 50 centers (90.9%), however, 28 (50.9%) carry out an evaluation of the profitability. Regarding quality management, 28 (50.9%) did not have quality parameters implanted and 11 (40.7%) did not perform internal audit. Communication failures are present in 48 (87.2%) centers. Based on the evaluation of the practical application of the 10 knowledge areas of the PMBOK® Guide, the project management model was developed with applicability to clinical research centers. Conclusions: It is possible that the centers have a better definition of the scope of each project, the costs and deadlines have a low margin of variability, a good communication between the parties is established and the economic impact of the management can be recognized.