The implementation of an advanced practice radiation therapy (APRT) program in Singapore

From novice to Expert: Reducing Breast Imaging rejection rates through physician mentorship in Advanced Practice Radiation therapy

Purpose

The study's goal was to evaluate the impact of a Radiation Oncologist (RO)-Radiation Therapist (RTT) mentorship on image approval rates for a breast population undergoing radiation therapy in a high-volume practice. The mentorship was undertaken within a large health system in partial fulfillment of the Expert Practice Module for a Masters (MSc) in Advanced Practice Radiotherapy and Oncology.

Methods

Images were retrieved from the MOSAIQ EMR on breast diagnostic code. 1,295 images/115 patients were reviewed pre-mentorship (October 2019-March 2020) and compared with 1,047 images/91patients during/post-mentorship (April 2020-September 2020). The Anderson-Gill (AG) model was used to estimate the hazard ratio for image rejection. Rejected images were classified by reason and compared using Fisher's exact test. Concordance data (RO/RTT image rejection) were collected during Phase Three of the mentorship.

Results

Of 115 patients assessed pre-mentorship, 16 (14 %) had at least 1 image rejected at any session. Of 91 patients assessed post-mentorship, 8 (9 %) had at least 1 image rejected. Likelihood of image rejection decreased by 54 %, with a hazard ratio of 0.46 [95 % CI: 0.24, 0.88]; p = 0.0195. Reasons for image rejection differed pre- and post-mentorship. Poor imaging technique accounted for rejection of 9 of 24 images (37.5 %) before compared to 0 of 11 images (0 %) post-mentorship. Other reasons for image rejection: depth at isocenter (25 % pre-mentorship; 18 % post-mentorship), supraclavicular medial border position (12.5 % vs. 9.09 %), isocenter location (12.5 % vs. 0 %), arm position (4.17 % vs. 54.55 %); hip alignment (8.33 % vs. 18.18 %). Concordance rate was 100 %.

Conclusions

The mentorship proved successful in elevating the RTT's skills and image approval rates, while contributing to improvements in departmental imaging best practices.

Established advanced practice roles in radiation therapy: A scoping review

Advanced practitioners are healthcare professionals that are highly skilled with a particular area of expertise. These roles have been successfully implemented in many healthcare settings, improving efficiency of the service, as well as enhancing the standard of care received by patients. Although advanced practice roles have been implemented in some radiation therapy departments, their implementation have yet to be facilitated in the majority of countries. The purpose of this review is to scope the literature available regarding established advanced practice roles in radiation therapy. The PRISMA strategy for the identification of relevant literature was adhered to. Two data bases, EMBASE and PubMed, were searched using combinations of the key words 'Advanced', 'Practice', 'APRT', 'Radiation', 'Therapy' and 'Radiotherapy'. Exclusion criteria were applied, and citation lists were also screened for additional relevant sources, including grey literature sources. A total of 35 relevant sources were identified that discussed advanced practice radiation therapy roles in the United Kingdom, Singapore, Canada, Australia and the USA. Means of role establishment and scope of practice were defined, and a number of advantages and challenges for advanced practice radiation therapist roles were identified. There are many benefits of implementing advanced practice roles in radiation therapy departments. Though the implementation of these roles can be challenging, the existing evidence indicates that it would be beneficial for the patient, the radiation therapist and the department as a whole. A more systematic approach, including reporting of quantitative outcomes may assist in the more widespread implementation of these roles.

Overcoming uncertainty: A framework to guide the implementation of Australian radiation therapy advanced practitioners

INTRODUCTION

The implementation of radiation therapy advanced practice in Australia has not yet been broadly realised. With anticipated growing demands on cancer services, it is imperative to understand why this is the case, and to strategise a way forward. As a result, we explored the factors influencing the implementation of advanced practitioner radiation therapists (APRT) in Australia. The research outcome was a complex process of Navigating Uncertainty, which described the contextual, social and personal factors surrounding implementation successes and challenges. Further synthesis of the findings was undertaken to highlight the fundamental features influencing this process, with the intention to provide a useful understanding for practitioners seeking APRT implementation.

METHODS

Data were collected through national online focus groups and case studies with 53 participants. Analysis identified a constructivist grounded theory process of Navigating Uncertainty. Further analysis of the categories and properties of the process was undertaken to synthesise findings at a higher level of abstraction.

RESULTS

Four overarching and intertwined factors were influencing the implementation of APRT. Uncertainty occurred when practitioners attempted to conceptualise and assimilate the new role into the workplace. Power was apparent in the advocacy and legitimisation of the APRT by centre leaders. Value was vital to achieving purposeful outcomes. Identity was evident in the personal transition of the APRT, and in the boundary work with others.

CONCLUSION

Recognising and negotiating uncertainty, power, value and identity is essential for APRT implementation strategies to succeed. A framework to guide practitioners towards the implementation of APRT has been described that embodies these factors.

An Environmental Scan of Advanced Practice Radiation Therapy in the United States: A PESTEL Analysis

PURPOSE

In 2021, the Advanced Practice Radiation Therapy Working Group (APRTWG) was established in the United States as a grassroots alliance of multidisciplinary radiation oncology professionals-radiation therapists, physicians, dosimetrists, and administrators-located across the country, interested in studying and establishing the Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist (APRT) level of practice in the United States. The APRT model has shown success in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Singapore, and other countries, documenting the value of the APRT to the quality and advancement of clinical care. In the United States, the APRTWG seeks to coordinate activities, align resources, and drive the national agenda to collectively develop and define novel models of care using APRT in line with the evolving needs of patients and the radiation therapy profession. This environmental scan aims to examine the context of radiation oncology medical practice in the United States to inform pathways ahead for a proposed APRT model through a Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, and Legal (PESTEL) analysis.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A literature search was conducted to understand the chronological timeline of the development of APRT during the past 25 years. Items that included the activities, scope of practice, and implementation of APRT nationally and internationally were identified. Papers describing advanced practitioner roles that are commonly found in the multidisciplinary team in radiation oncology both in the United States and internationally, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, were excluded.

RESULTS

Despite the environmental scan outcome, it is acknowledged that data collation and analysis was not as robust as that anticipated by undertaking a systematic review. Papers were identified by the lead author that aligned with each of the PESTEL factors. Defined broadly, a new care model can adjust how health services are delivered by incorporating best practices in patient care for a specific population, person, or patient cohort. As patients enter different stages of their disease, the purpose of a new model is to provide individuals with the right care, at the right time, by the right team, in the right place. It is clear that the opportunity for positive change and impact on the current state of practice in radiation oncology exists.

CONCLUSION

The environmental scan findings demonstrate the complexities associated with implementing APRT in the United States, with multifactorial political, environmental, societal, technological, economic, and legal aspects to consider. The APRTWG will continue to lead and participate in such activities to demonstrate and identify APRT role opportunities in the United States and drive the nationwide implementation of the APRT level of practice in this country.

Triage for palliative radiotherapy by clinical specialist radiation therapists: A scoping review

Patients who could benefit from palliative radiotherapy (PRT) may be in different phases of the cancer journey: they may have minimal symptoms and preserved functional status, or could be near end of life, with multiple complex care needs. Efficient triage at PRT referral is crucial to match patients with an appropriate provider and care setting as quickly as possible. Many centres have a dedicated PRT clinic, for which triage occurs by a Palliative Clinical Specialist Radiation Therapist (PCSRT). We performed an English-language literature search of 15 databases, without date limits, based on the PICO framework. After independent screening of titles and abstracts by two authors, relevant full text papers were reviewed. Twenty studies (15 publications and five abstracts) and one government report met inclusion criteria. Studies were published over a 21-year period by investigators from four countries. By identifying bottlenecks, screening out inappropriate referrals, and assessing patients in advance of consult, PSCRT triage decreased wait times by approximately 50%, on average, compared to standard pathways (range 30-82%). Increasing efficiency by pre-booking and coordinating appointments increases patient volumes and optimizes use of resources. A triage PCSRT serving a navigator role improves continuity of care, and in decreasing the number of handoffs, safety as well. Shifting triage to a PCSRT allows multidisciplinary team members to work to their maximum scope. In one clinic, after incorporation of PCSRT triage, use of on-call services decreased, as more patients were seen during daytime appointments, contributing to cost-savings.

Advanced practice roles of therapeutic radiographers/radiation therapists: A systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Advances in Radiotherapy (RT) technology and increase of complexity in cancer care have enabled the implementation of new treatment techniques. Subsequently, a greater level of autonomy, responsibility, and accountability in the practice of Therapeutic Radiographers/Radiation Therapists (TR/RTTs) has led to Advanced Practice (AP) roles. The published evidence of this role is scattered with confusing terminology and divergence regarding the perception of whether a specific role represents AP internationally. This study aims to establish an international baseline of evidence on AP roles in RT to identify roles and activities performed by TR/RTTs at advanced level practice and to summarise the impact.

METHODS

A systematic PRISMA review of the literature was undertaken. Thematic analysis was used to synthesise the roles and associated activities. Six RT external experts validated the list. The impact was scrutinised in terms of clinical, organisational, and professional outcomes.

RESULTS

Studies (n = 87) were included and categorised into four groups. AP roles were listed by clinical area, site-specific, and scope of practice, and advanced activities were organised into seven dimensions and 27 sub-dimensions. Three most-reported outcomes were: enhanced service capacity, higher patient satisfaction, and safety maintenance.

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based AP amongst TR/RTTs show how AP roles were conceptualised, implemented, and evaluated. Congruence studies have shown that TR/RTTs are at par with the gold-standard across the various AP roles.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This is the first systematic literature review synthetisising AP roles and activities of TR/RTTs. This study also identified the main areas of AP that can be used to develop professional frameworks and education guiding policy by professional bodies, educators and other stakeholders.

Establishing a palliative Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist role: A viable alternative to a Rapid Access Palliative Radiation Therapy clinic in Australia

INTRODUCTION

A recent survey found that Rapid Access Palliative Radiation Therapy (RAPRT) clinics have not been widely embraced in Australia and New Zealand for many reasons. The purpose of this narrative is to describe the transition of a Brisbane, Queensland, RAPRT clinic to an Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist (APRT) model to further improve access and delivery of palliative radiation therapy at that centre.

METHODS

The weekly RAPRT clinic commenced in 2005, run by one Radiation Oncologist (RO). The role of the attending senior Radiation Therapist (RT) was mainly to facilitate rapid passage of patients from clinic to treatment. However, because individual ROs preferred to retain care of their own patients, capture of the relevant population was limited. It was therefore decided in 2012 to gradually transition to a model where the RT would work with all ROs and manage all palliative patients from referral to follow-up, under RO supervision.

RESULTS

The steps to this palliative APRT pathway involved formulation of the role description, mentoring/training of the RT, overseas site visits, further post-graduate education, funding of the position, staff feedback surveys, evaluation studies and endorsement by professional bodies, leading to formal credentialing in 2017. Importantly, the APRT undertakes all steps in the pathway including field or volume delineation (with approval and sign-off by the responsible RO). The role has come to be highly valued by all disciplines.

CONCLUSION

The successful establishment of a palliative APRT role in one Australian centre serves as a template for others wishing to create a similar position.

An evaluation of concordance between head and neck advanced practice radiation therapist and radiation oncologists in toxicity assessment for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients

•

Show concordance in toxicity assessment between Head and Neck Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist (APRT) and Radiation Oncologist (RO) for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma (NPC) patients.

•

Describe the importance of timely treatment for NPC patients.

•

Underline the important role development of APRT in complementing the RO.

•

Different ways of data analysis to support the concordance study.

Background

Weekly toxicity assessments for patients undergoing head and neck (HN) radiotherapy are essential to ensure that acute side effects are appropriately managed in order for patients to complete their treatment in a safe and timely manner. The incorporation of Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist (APRT) led treatment reviews has been reported for various subsites, but there is currently a lack of published literature regarding this role for patients with HN cancer. The purpose of this study is to assess the concordance of toxicity assessments performed during weekly radiotherapy treatment reviews for patients undergoing HN radiotherapy between the HN APRT and Radiation Oncologist (RO).

Methods

Twenty-three patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) under the care of 3 ROs were recruited from June to December 2018; weekly assessments were independently performed by HN APRT and ROs. The HN toxicity assessment was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Advanced Events v4.0. Both assessors were blinded to each other’s assessments. The percentage agreement of concordance and agreement level were interpreted by Cohen’s Kappa statistic (κ), with the ROs’ assessments deemed as the ‘gold standard’.

Results

The overall concordance for all graded toxicity assessments between HN APRT and ROs was 78.4%. Xerostomia, dysgeusia, pharyngeal pain and dermatitis assessment were evaluated as ‘Good’ with agreement ranging from κ = 0.608–0.640 between the HN APRT and ROs while dysphagia scored an ‘Almost Perfect’ agreement of κ = 0.834. ‘Moderate’ agreement between the HN APRT and ROs was observed for oral pain and mucositis assessment. A scoring discrepancy of 1 and 2 grades was observed in 21.2% and 0.4% for these two toxicities.

Conclusion

 There was high concordance in scoring of acute toxicity between the HN APRT and ROs. The results support the continuing involvement of HN APRT in weekly assessments for NPC patients.