A Clinical Consensus Approach to Developing a New Funding Model for Radiation Services in Ontario.

In 2021, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) introduced a quality-based procedure model for the funding of radiation treatment (RT) in Ontario. This model ties reimbursement to patient care activities, ensuring equity and transparency in funding. Over 200 RT interprofessionals (oncologists, therapists and physicists) participated on 22 expert panels to establish or identify 288 evidence-based RT protocols and 672 quality expectations (QEs) to optimally deliver RT, which eventually led to the micro-costing of all protocols. Iterative review is required to ensure updated techniques and identify evolving standards of care, thereby providing the highest quality of RT care to Ontarians.

Relationships, body image, and intimacy: A pilot to increase sexual health conversations between radiation therapists and cancer patients in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, a sexual health guideline recommended that the first step to addressing sexual health and dysfunction resulting from cancer and its treatment is for healthcare providers to initiate sexual health conversations with patients. To action this, a sexual health knowledge translation (KT) pilot was developed. METHODS: The Relationships, Body image, and Intimacy (RBI) pilot was implemented at four regional cancer centres (RCCs) from January 2018 to February 2020 which focused on medical radiation therapists (MRT(T)s) initiating conversations with radiation therapy patients. MRT(T)s were recruited to be RBI champion role models and were trained on RBI topics, trained fellow MRT(T)s, and modelled best practice for sexual health conversations with cancer patients. Pilot interventions were developed to address barriers to RBI conversations. Both qualitative and quantitative data collection activities were implemented to evaluate pilot interventions. RESULTS: Before the RBI pilot, over 80% of MRT(T)s reported they did not initiate RBI conversations with patients. By the end of the pilot, over 52% of MRT(T)s reported initiating RBI conversations with all or almost all patients. Feedback from patients was positive. Barriers to comfort level with RBI topic were successfully addressed with continued education and training throughout the pilot. DISCUSSION: Results show increased RBI conversations during the pilot, and MRT(T)s reported increased comfort speaking with patients about RBI with continued practice. The RBI champions played a pivotal role in the pilot's success and increased MRT(T) comfort with RBI. Initial barriers to RBI conversations were less reported as the pilot progressed and RBI conversations were normalized for patients. CONCLUSIONS: The RBI pilot was a novel KT initiative focused on supporting MRT(T)s to ensure patients were aware of sexual health resources available to them during their radiation therapy. Knowledge gained from this pilot can easily be adapted to assist other health care providers and additional RCCs to confidently initiate RBI conversations with their patients.

Development of Best Practices of Peer Review for Lung Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Peer review (PR) is an important component in ensuring high-quality lung radiotherapy (RT) plans. However, there are inconsistencies in the extent, timing, and minimum requirements for PR. We sought to develop guidelines of best practices for PR in curative lung RT through an expert consensus process. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was conducted that consisted of an initial review by a dedicated steering committee followed by a pan-Canadian, multidisciplinary Delphi panel with 3 rounds (premeeting survey, face-to-face meeting, and postmeeting ratification survey). Candidate PR elements were ranked by importance and stratified by treatment of locally advanced (LA) disease with conventional RT or stereotactic ablative body RT (SABR) for early-stage disease. RESULTS: For the LA case, 6 elements (indications for RT, gross tumor volume [GTV], clinical target volume [CTV], internal target volume [ITV], dose/fractionation, and normal lung dosimetry) were considered as essential PR elements. Of these, 90%-100% of the panel endorsed them to be important to PR, and 80% believed that the PR should be done by a second radiation oncologist (RO). In the SABR case, 6 PR elements (indications for RT, GTV, CTV/ITV, organs at risk contours, dose/fractionation, and composite plan review) were deemed essential. Of these, 90%-100% of panel members believed these elements to be important to PR and unanimously agreed that PR should be done by a second RO. CONCLUSION: A suite of PR elements for lung RT has been developed and endorsed with high consensus. This suite should serve as a basis to help to harmonize PR practices across centers and to help to develop novel PR approaches going forward.

Improving Quality of Radiation Therapy Care Across Ontario using a Community-of-Practice Approach.

PURPOSE: In 2003 and 2004, Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) divested its assets and staff to regional hospitals, leading to decreased contact between radiation therapy departments across Ontario's Regional Cancer Centres (RCCs). The Radiation Treatment Program (RTP) at CCO developed a communities-of-practice (CoPs) program to rebuild the provincial radiation therapy community to facilitate collaboration among centers, with the goals of decreasing variation in practice and improving the quality of patient care. RTP's CoPs are led and driven by volunteer frontline health care practitioners who identify and prioritize key quality issues and select corresponding projects to pursue. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An evaluation of RTP's CoPs was conducted to assess whether they were successful in knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and exchange, and community building. The framework was developed based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CoP evaluation framework and tools. Data were collected using prospectively administered member surveys (257 surveys), publications, and semistructured interviews (18 participants). RESULTS: A total of 95% of participants reported that CoP projects were very relevant to their practice, and 50% reported changes in their practice stemming from CoP involvement. In addition, 90% of participants reported growth of their professional network as a result of CoPs. Overall, 93% of participants and 100% of interviewees reported that CoPs are a worthwhile initiative. The largest challenge of CoPs was the time commitment required to participate. CONCLUSIONS: This approach of member-driven CoPs should be explored and modeled in other health care settings as a means to develop and share knowledge to reduce variation in care and improve the quality of radiation therapy care.