Patient consent preferences on sharing personal health information during the COVID-19 pandemic: "the more informed we are, the more likely we are to help".

BACKGROUND: Rapid ethical access to personal health information (PHI) to support research is extremely important during pandemics, yet little is known regarding patient preferences for consent during such crises. This follow-up study sought to ascertain whether there were differences in consent preferences between pre-pandemic times compared to during Wave 1 of the COVID-19 global pandemic, and to better understand the reasons behind these preferences. METHODS: A total of 183 patients in the pandemic cohort completed the survey via email, and responses were compared to the distinct pre-pandemic cohort (n = 222); all were patients of a large Canadian cancer center. The survey covered (a) broad versus study-specific consent; (b) opt-in versus opt-out contact approach; (c) levels of comfort sharing with different recipients; (d) perceptions of commercialization; and (e) options to track use of information and be notified of results. Four focus groups (n = 12) were subsequently conducted to elucidate reasons motivating dominant preferences. RESULTS: Patients in the pandemic cohort were significantly more comfortable with sharing all information and biological samples (90% vs. 79%, p = 0.009), sharing information with the health care institution (97% vs. 83%, p < 0.001), sharing information with researchers at other hospitals (85% vs. 70%, p < 0.001), sharing PHI provincially (69% vs. 53%, p < 0.002), nationally (65% vs. 53%, p = 0.022) and internationally (48% vs. 39%, p = 0.024) compared to the pre-pandemic cohort. Discomfort with sharing information with commercial companies remained unchanged between the two cohorts (50% vs. 51% uncomfortable, p = 0.58). Significantly more pandemic cohort patients expressed a wish to track use of PHI (75% vs. 61%, p = 0.007), and to be notified of results (83% vs. 70%, p = 0.012). Thematic analysis uncovered that transparency was strongly desired on outside PHI use, particularly when commercialization was involved. CONCLUSIONS: In pandemic times, patients were more comfortable sharing information with all parties, except with commercial entities, where levels of discomfort (~ 50%) remained unchanged. Focus groups identified that the ability to track and receive results of studies using one's PHI is an important way to reduce discomfort and increase trust. These findings meaningfully inform wider discussions on the use of personal health information for research during global crises.

A blueprint for building an emergency department quality improvement and patient safety committee.

The field of quality improvement and patient safety (QIPS) has matured significantly in emergency medicine over the past decade. From standalone, strategically misaligned, and incoherently designed QIPS projects years ago, emergency department (ED) leaders have now recognized that developing a more robust QIPS infrastructure helps prioritize and organize projects for a greater likelihood of success and impact for patients and the system. This process includes the development of a well-defined, accountable, and supported departmental QIPS committee. This can be achieved effectively using a deliberate and structured approach, such as the one described by Harvard Business School Professor John Kotter in his seminal work, "Leading Change." Herein, we present a blueprint using this framework and include practical examples from our experience developing a robust and successful ED QIPS committee and infrastructure. The steps include how to develop a "burning platform," select a guiding coalition of leaders, develop a strategic vision and initiatives, recruit a volunteer army of members, enable actions for the committee, generate short-term successes, sustain the pace of change, and, finally, enable the infrastructure to support ongoing improvements. This road map can be replicated by ED teams of variable sizes and settings to structure, prioritize, and operationalize their QIPS activities and ultimately improve the outcomes of their patients.

RéSUMé: Le domaine de l'amélioration de la qualité de la pratique clinique et de la sécurité des patients (AQSP) s'est considérablement développé en médecine d'urgence au cours de la dernière décennie. Alors qu'il y a quelques années, les projets d'AQSP étaient autonomes, mal alignés sur le plan stratégique et conçus de manière incohérente, les responsables des services d'urgence (SU) reconnaissent aujourd'hui que la mise en place d'une infrastructure d'AQSP plus solide permet de hiérarchiser et d'organiser les projets pour qu'ils aient plus de chances de réussir et d'avoir un impact sur les patients et le système. Ce processus comprend le développement d'un comité d'AQSP départemental bien défini, responsable et soutenu. On peut y parvenir efficacement en utilisant une approche délibérée et structurée, comme celle décrite par le professeur John Kotter de la Harvard Business School dans son ouvrage phare intitulé « Leading Change ¼. Dans le présent document, nous présentons un plan à l'aide de ce cadre et incluons des exemples pratiques tirés de notre expérience de l'élaboration d'un comité et d'une infrastructure d'AQSP de SU solides et réussis. Les étapes comprennent la façon d'élaborer une « plateforme brûlante ¼, de sélectionner une coalition de dirigeants, d'élaborer une vision et des initiatives stratégiques, de recruter une armée de membres bénévoles, de permettre des actions pour le comité, de générer des succès à court terme, de maintenir le rythme du changement et enfin, permettre à l'infrastructure de soutenir les améliorations en cours. Cette feuille de route peut être reproduite par des équipes d'urgence de tailles et de contextes différents pour structurer, hiérarchiser et rendre opérationnelles leurs activités d'AQSP et, en fin de compte, améliorer les résultats de leurs patients.

Physician Champions of Quality and Safety: Perspectives of MD Quality and Safety Leads to Drive Quality Innovation at an Academic Hospital.

While the importance of physician involvement in organizational quality and safety (Q&S) activities has been well established, a paucity of information exists on tangible supports needed to effectively execute this role. Interviews with 13 MD Q&S leads uncovered common enablers, including valuing Q&S work academically, hiring skilled collaborators, ensuring appropriate power and authority to advance Q&S initiatives, facilitating connections, emphasizing culture change and strong action by leadership. To operationalize these enablers and drive quality innovation, organizations should prioritize the identification and appointment of MD Q&S leads for each department/division and facilitate their assembly as a formal physician Q&S committee.

Getting back on track: a group psychoeducational intervention for patients and families living with head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: Head and neck cancer survivors are increasing in prevalence, and 60-70% still experience at least one unmet emotional and/or physical need after treatment has ended. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of a brief post-treatment psychoeducational intervention on perceived preparedness for coping with recovery using post-session evaluations. METHODS: Between August 2013 and May 2018, a two-session, multidisciplinary "getting back on track" class was delivered to head and neck cancer patients approximately 2 months following radiation treatment at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada. Three hundred and fifty attendees completed evaluations. Statistical analyses of the 310 patients surveyed measured change in level of preparedness to cope with recovery using the b-prepared scale. Qualitative analyses provided insight into potential benefits for future patients. RESULTS: Almost two-thirds (58%) of patients reported an increase in level of preparedness in post-intervention surveys. Comparing self-reported level of preparedness among patients from before to after the class showed an increase in feeling prepared from 50 to 58%, and of those feeling very prepared, from 6 to 34%. The proportion of patients who reported feeling unprepared (11%) or neutral (33%) before the class decreased post-intervention, with 0% feeling unprepared and 7% feeling neutral. There were statistically significant differences in the ideal timing of the class, but overall attendees agreed that the class is an essential part of their recovery. CONCLUSION: Results confirm the efficacy of this brief psychoeducational intervention to improve preparedness in head and neck cancer survivors following radiation treatment.

"It's good for the soul:" Perceptions of a formal junior faculty mentorship program at a large academic cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Mentorship fosters professional and personal growth; however, the components essential to program success remain unclear. Our objective was to evaluate and explore the impact of a junior faculty mentorship program within an academic radiation oncology department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2016, our institution implemented a junior faculty mentorship program consisting of: (1) an orientation handbook; (2) faculty development sessions; and (3) direct, one-to-one selection of a mentor. Confidentiality agreements are signed, a goals template is provided, and meeting dates are tracked. Mentors/mentees were invited to participate in a program evaluation using mixed-methodology: a questionnaire followed by a one-on-one semi-structured interview to explore perceptions of the program. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Descriptive statistics summarized questionnaire results and thematic analysis summarized interview results. RESULTS: Eleven junior faculty have selected 10 mentors. Of these, 17 completed the evaluation questionnaire (81%) (7 mentors, 10 mentees; 5 women, 12 men) and 13 were interviewed (62%) (5 mentors, 8 mentees; 3 women, 10 men). The majority (80%) have participated in the program for >2 years. Although most mentees report additional mentors, 30% report this as their sole mentorship relationship. Four themes emerged: (i) Components of an Ideal Mentoring Relationship, (ii) The Value of Mentorship, (iii) Sponsorship, in addition to Mentorship and (iv) Cultivating Departmental Bonds and Boundaries. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a junior faculty mentorship program within an academic radiation oncology department is feasible. Participants expressed satisfaction with most formal program components. Many junior faculty have additional mentors; however, some do not, highlighting the importance of formal programs for professional development.

The use of personal health information outside the circle of care: consent preferences of patients from an academic health care institution.

BACKGROUND: Immense volumes of personal health information (PHI) are required to realize the anticipated benefits of artificial intelligence in clinical medicine. To maintain public trust in medical research, consent policies must evolve to reflect contemporary patient preferences. METHODS: Patients were invited to complete a 27-item survey focusing on: (a) broad versus specific consent; (b) opt-in versus opt-out approaches; (c) comfort level sharing with different recipients; (d) attitudes towards commercialization; and (e) options to track PHI use and study results. RESULTS: 222 participants were included in the analysis; 83% were comfortable sharing PHI with researchers at their own hospital, although younger patients (≤ 49 years) were more uncomfortable than older patients (50 + years; 13% versus 2% uncomfortable, p < 0.05). While 56% of patients preferred broad consent, 38% preferred specific consent; 6% preferred not sharing at all. The majority of patients (63%) preferred to be asked for permission before entry into a contact pool. Again, this trend was more pronounced for younger patients (≤ 49 years: 76%). Approximately half of patients were uncomfortable sharing PHI with commercial enterprises (51% uncomfortable, 27% comfortable, 22% neutral). Most patients preferred to track PHI usage (61%), with the highest proportion once again reported by the youngest patients (≤ 49 years: 71%). A majority of patients also wished to be notified regarding study results (70%). CONCLUSIONS: While most patients were willing to share their PHI with researchers within their own institution, many preferred a transparent and reciprocal consent process. These data also suggest a generational shift, wherein younger patients preferred more specific consent options. Modernizing consent policies to reflect increased autonomy is crucial in fostering sustained public engagement with medical research.

Accelerated Education Program in Radiation Medicine: International Learner Perceptions of Experiences, Outcomes, and Impact.

PURPOSE: The Accelerated Education Program (AEP) at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM) has been offering continuing medical education courses since 2006. The purpose of this study was to assess learner experiences, perspectives, and outcomes using Kirkpatrick's Four Level Training Evaluation Model (ie, reaction, learning, behavior, results) to ascertain whether it was meeting stated goals. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Past course participants (2010-2018) were invited to participate in a semistructured interview. Interviews were transcribed verbatim; thematic analysis was conducted by a 4-person research team. RESULTS: Seventeen participants including 2 medical physicists, 6 radiation oncologists, and 9 radiation therapists from 6 countries on 4 continents participated in the study. Interviews lasted an average of 25 minutes. Consistently positive outcomes were reported at each level of Kirkpatrick's model. At the reaction level, participants liked the small, interactive case-based design, exposure to renowned faculty and practices from PM and other major centers, and the interprofessional practice (IPP) approach. Suggestions for improvements include enhancing practical content. At the learning level, participants reported gaining new knowledge or skills and new awareness or attitudes. Behavior changes described included sharing learnings with colleagues, implementing changes in practice or techniques, departmental structure, and IPP. Participants described the effects on clinical practice (results) in quality of care, access to care, and academic contribution. Identified barriers to change related to the restricted internal capacity for change and the need for wider staff training. CONCLUSIONS: AEP courses were found to have a positive effect on local practices ranging from confirmation of current practice through to increased access to and quality of advanced radiotherapeutic techniques and care. Our findings confirm that AEP is achieving its goal of "putting innovation to work" and suggest curricular improvements that can enhance these effects.

Radiation Oncology Fellowship: a Value-Based Assessment Among Graduates of a Mature Program.

The University of Toronto - Department of Radiation Oncology (UTDRO) has had a well-established Fellowship Program for over 20 years. An assessment of its graduates was conducted to evaluate training experience and perceived impact on professional development. Graduates of the UTDRO Fellowship Program between 1991 and 2015 were the focus of our review. Current employment status was collected using online tools. A study-specific web-based questionnaire was distributed to 263/293 graduates for whom active e-mails were identified; questions focused on training experience, and impact on career progression and academic productivity. As a surrogate measure for the impact of UTDRO Fellowship training, a comparison of current employment and scholarly activities of individuals who obtained their Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada (FRCPC) designation in Radiation Oncology between 2000 and 2012, with (n = 57) or without (n = 230) UTDRO Fellowship training, was conducted. Almost all UTDRO Fellowship graduates were employed as staff radiation oncologists (291/293), and most of those employed were associated with additional academic (130/293), research (53/293), or leadership (68/293) appointments. Thirty-eight percent (101/263) of alumni responded to the online survey. The top two reasons for completing the Fellowship were to gain specific clinical expertise and exposure to research opportunities. Respondents were very satisfied with their training experience, and the vast majority (99%) would recommend the program to others. Most (96%) felt that completing the Fellowship was beneficial to their career development. University of Toronto, Department of Radiation Oncology Fellowship alumni were more likely to hold university, research, and leadership appointments, and author significantly more publications than those with FRCPC designation without fellowship training from UTDRO. The UTDRO Fellowship Program has been successful since its inception, with the majority of graduates reporting positive training experiences, benefits to scholarly output, and professional development for their post-fellowship careers. Key features that would optimize the fellowship experience and its long-term impact on trainees were also identified.

Design and Implementation of a Distant-Learning Clinical Research Mentorship Program: The Accra-Toronto Collaboration.

PURPOSE: For many oncology training programs in low- and middle-income countries, dedicated time for research education and mentorship of trainees is limited. Here, we report a 1-year-long collaboration between a cancer center in Canada and one in Ghana with the aim of imparting clinical research skills and mentoring the research of radiation oncology residents. METHODS: On the basis of a needs assessment conducted in Ghana, we designed a curriculum consisting of 13 weekly seminars delivered via videoconference, followed by a 1-year-long mentorship program to support research projects. The primary outcome was the feasibility of the program from seminars to manuscript preparation. We used multiple secondary outcomes to capture the learning experience with study-specific questionnaires. We evaluated critical thinking ability using the Berlin questionnaire. Funding was made available for research and travel to international conferences. RESULTS: Five Ghanaian trainees submitted research proposals. Nine Canadian faculty members delivered the seminars and two served as methodology mentors, and two Ghanaian faculty acted as local supervisors. Feedback questionnaires from all participants showed that they agreed strongly that they would recommend the sessions to another resident (75%), that the objectives were clear (71%), and that the topics were useful for their training (73%). At the end of the program, two Ghanaian trainees finalized their manuscripts and one was published. CONCLUSION: Here, we report on the implementation of a mentorship program focused on research methods and evidence-based medicine in sub-Saharan Africa. The program was successful in the drafting and publication of abstracts and manuscripts by local trainees.