Transforming Oncology Care: Developing a Strategy and Measuring Success

Nursing Leaders as Visionaries and Enablers of Action

OBJECTIVES

The engagement of nursing leaders is critical for the future of the cancer nursing profession, quality cancer care, and the overall health care system. The field of cancer care is facing enormous challenges, requiring strong nursing leadership. Cancer nursing leadership is needed to overcome the challenges caused by workforce shortages, restricted resources, historic and ongoing under-recognition of nursing, unsafe working conditions, and unequal access to education. The aim of this article is to contribute to the discussion about how cancer nursing leaders can act as visionaries and support transformation of cancer nursing for the future.

DATA SOURCES

Author experience, journal articles and organizational position papers were used.

CONCLUSION

To improve the state of cancer nursing and the working conditions of the cancer nursing workforce, nursing leadership practices need to be embraced on all governance levels in clinical practice and academia. When effective and high-quality nursing leadership is enacted, positive outcomes for people affected by cancer, nursing, and health care systems can be achieved. Cancer nursing leadership needs to be supported through nursing scholarship, influencing national and global policies and strategies and by active involvement in national and international health care management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nursing leadership and governance is critical to strengthening the cancer nursing workforce. Strong nursing leadership is required to realize the vision for transforming the health care systems and cancer care. Therefore, collaboration among multidisciplinary leadership, health care organizations, academic institutions, professional organizations, and policy-making structures is warranted.

Metrics to Evaluate the Performance of Cancer Center Leadership: A Systematic Review

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cancer centers are diverse healthcare organizations comprising clinicians and researchers dedicated to understanding, treating, and controlling cancer in the populations they serve. Although many metrics are used to evaluate cancer center performance, few of these standardized measures have been identified to evaluate cancer center leadership. We performed a systematic review to identify published literature presenting metrics used to evaluate the leadership of cancer centers. Metrics were then classified using 10 a priori-defined categories of evaluation. Overall, we reviewed 34 articles (studies, editorials, interviews). The most commonly discussed leadership evaluation category was Organizational Strategy/Planning (31 of the 34 articles), followed by Leader Characteristics (25 articles), Clinical Performance (21), and Facility Characteristics (20). Organizational Strategy/Planning metrics included governance structure, strategic development, quality assurance and improvement, mission and vision, business planning, and program development. Leader Characteristic metrics included communication, vision/strategic thinking, personal skills, team coordination, leadership style, and staff development. Clinical Performance metrics focused on delivery of and outcomes from clinical services, while Facility Characteristics included space allocation and access to support services. The metrics reviewed in this article may be considered measurable outcomes in evaluating whether cancer center leadership demonstrates key competencies. Additional research should explore the linkage among metrics used to evaluate cancer center leaders, desired competencies for healthcare leaders, and objective measures of whether a cancer center is successful.

Strategic planning in an academic radiation medicine program

Background

In this paper, we report on the process of strategic planning in the Radiation Medicine Program (rmp) at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. The rmp conducted a strategic planning exercise to ensure that program priorities reflect the current health care environment, enable nimble responses to the increasing burden of cancer, and guide program operations until 2020.

Methods

Data collection was guided by a project charter that outlined the project goal and the roles and responsibilities of all participants. The process was managed by a multidisciplinary steering committee under the guidance of an external consultant and consisted of reviewing strategic planning documents from close collaborators and institutional partners, conducting interviews with key stakeholders, deploying a program-wide survey, facilitating an anonymous and confidential e-mail feedback box, and collecting information from group deliberations.

Results

The process of strategic planning took place from December 2014 to December 2015. Mission and vision statements were developed, and core values were defined. A final document, Strategic Roadmap to 2020, was established to guide programmatic pursuits during the ensuing 5 years, and an implementation plan was developed to guide the first year of operations.

Conclusions

The strategic planning process provided an opportunity to mobilize staff talents and identify environmental opportunities, and helped to enable more effective use of resources in a rapidly changing health care environment. The process was valuable in allowing staff to consider and discuss the future, and in identifying strategic issues of the greatest importance to the program. Academic programs with similar mandates might find our report useful in guiding similar processes in their own organizations.