Implementation of electronic prospective surveillance models in cancer care: a scoping review

Use of implementation mapping to develop a multifaceted implementation strategy for an electronic prospective surveillance model for cancer rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Electronic Prospective Surveillance Models (ePSMs) remotely monitor the rehabilitation needs of people with cancer via patient-reported outcomes at pre-defined time points during cancer care and deliver support, including links to self-management education and community programs, and recommendations for further clinical screening and rehabilitation referrals. Previous guidance on implementing ePSMs lacks sufficient detail on approaches to select implementation strategies for these systems. The purpose of this article is to describe how we developed an implementation plan for REACH, an ePSM system designed for breast, colorectal, lymphoma, and head and neck cancers.

METHODS

Implementation Mapping guided the process of developing the implementation plan. We integrated findings from a scoping review and qualitative study our team conducted to identify determinants to implementation, implementation actors and actions, and relevant outcomes. Determinants were categorized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and the implementation outcomes taxonomy guided the identification of outcomes. Next, determinants were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy of strategies using the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool. The list of strategies produced was refined through discussion amongst our team and feedback from knowledge users considering each strategy's feasibility and importance rating via the Go-Zone plot, feasibility and applicability to the clinical contexts, and use among other ePSMs reported in our scoping review.

RESULTS

Of the 39 CFIR constructs, 22 were identified as relevant determinants. Clinic managers, information technology teams, and healthcare providers with key roles in patient education were identified as important actors. The CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool resulted in 50 strategies with Level 1 endorsement and 13 strategies with Level 2 endorsement. The final list of strategies included 1) purposefully re-examine the implementation, 2) tailor strategies, 3) change record systems, 4) conduct educational meetings, 5) distribute educational materials, 6) intervene with patients to enhance uptake and adherence, 7) centralize technical assistance, and 8) use advisory boards and workgroups.

CONCLUSION

We present a generalizable method that incorporates steps from Implementation Mapping, engages various knowledge users, and leverages implementation science frameworks to facilitate the development of an implementation strategy. An evaluation of implementation success using the implementation outcomes framework is underway.

Moving beyond barriers: a mixed-method study to develop evidence-based strategies to improve implementation of PROMs in clinical oncology care

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify feasible, evidence-based strategies to improve the use of Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) implemented in clinical oncology practice.

METHODS

A mixed-method study involving observations of consultations and semi-structured interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) was conducted to identify facilitators and barriers for using PROMs; barriers and facilitators were structured following the Theoretical Domains Framework. For each barrier, evidence-based improvement strategies were selected using the Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy v1. Subsequently, improvement strategies were ranked on priority and feasibility by an expert panel of HCPs, information technology professionals, and PROMs implementation specialists, creating an implementation improvement strategy.

RESULTS

Ten consultations were observed and 14 interviews conducted. Barriers for implementation included that the electronic health record and PROMs did not align to the individual needs of end users, the HCPs' hesitance to advice patients about health-related quality-of-life issues, and a lack of consensus on which HCPs were responsible for discussing PROMs with patients. Forty-one improvement strategies were identified, of which 25 remained after ranking. These included: redesigning the PROMs dashboard by including patient management advice, enhancing patient support to complete PROMs, and clarifying HCPs' responsibilities for discussing PROMs. Strategies currently considered less feasible were: improving user-friendliness of the patient portal due to technical constraints, aligning PROMs assessment frequency with clinical courses, and using baseline PROMs for early identification of vulnerabilities and supportive care needs. These will be studied in future research.

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based improvement strategies to ensure lasting adoption of PROMs in clinical practice were identified.

Implementation of an electronic prospective surveillance model for cancer rehabilitation: a mixed methods study protocol

INTRODUCTION

An electronic prospective surveillance model (ePSM) uses patient-reported outcomes to monitor impairments along the cancer pathway for timely management. Randomised controlled trials show that ePSMs can effectively manage cancer-related impairments. However, ePSMs are not routinely embedded into practice and evidence-based approaches to implement them are limited. As such, we developed and implemented an ePSM, called REACH, across four Canadian centres. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact and quality of the implementation of REACH and explore implementation barriers and facilitators.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a 16-month formative evaluation, using a single-arm mixed methods design to routinely monitor key implementation outcomes, identify barriers and adapt the implementation plan as required. Adult (≥18 years) breast, colorectal, lymphoma or head and neck cancer survivors will be eligible to register for REACH. Enrolled patients complete brief assessments of impairments over the course of their treatment and up to 2 years post-treatment and are provided with a personalised library of self-management education, community programmes and when necessary, suggested referrals to rehabilitation services. A multifaceted implementation plan will be used to implement REACH within each clinical context. We will assess several implementation outcomes including reach, acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, fidelity, cost and sustainability. Quantitative implementation data will be collected using system usage data and evaluation surveys completed by patient participants. Qualitative data will be collected through focus groups with patient participants and interviews with clinical leadership and management, and analysis will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Site-specific ethics approvals were obtained. The results from this study will be presented at academic conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. Additionally, knowledge translation materials will be co-designed with patient partners and will be disseminated to diverse knowledge users with support from our national and community partners.

Implementing a Clinical Pathway for Needs Assessment and Supportive Care Interventions

Despite advances in clinical cancer care, cancer survivors frequently report a range of persisting issues, unmet needs, and concerns that limit their ability to participate in life roles and reduce quality of life. Needs assessment is recognized as an important component of cancer care delivery, ideally beginning during active treatment to connect patients with supportive services that address these issues in a timely manner. Despite the recognized importance of this process, many health care systems have struggled to implement a feasible and sustainable needs assessment and management system. This article uses an implementation science framework to guide pragmatic implementation of a needs assessment clinical system in cancer care. According to this framework, successful implementation requires four steps including (1) choosing a needs assessment tool; (2) carefully considering the provider level, clinic level, and health care system-level strengths and barriers to implementation and creating a pilot system that addresses these factors; (3) making the assessment system actionable by matching needs with clinical workflow; and (4) demonstrating the value of the system to support sustainability.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome System at Cancer Hospitals in Japan

Background and objective Implementing electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) in oncology practice has shown substantial clinical benefits. However, it can be challenging in routine practice, warranting strategies to adapt to different clinical contexts. In light of this, this study aimed to describe the implementation process of the ePRO system and elucidate the provider-level implementation barriers and facilitators to a novel ePRO system at cancer hospitals in Japan. Methods We implemented an ePRO system linked to electronic medical records at three cancer hospitals. Fifteen patients with solid cancers at the outpatient oncology unit were asked to regularly complete the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™) questionnaire and European Organization for Research and Treatment Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30) by using the smartphone app between October 2021 and June 2022. Thirteen healthcare professionals were interviewed to identify implementation barriers and facilitators to the ePRO system by using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework. Results The healthcare professionals identified a lack of clinical resources and a culture and system that emphasizes treatment over care as the main barriers; however, the accumulation of successful cases, the leadership of managers, and the growing needs of patients can serve as facilitators to the implementation. Conclusions Our experience implementing an ePRO system in a few Japanese oncology practices revealed comprehensive barriers and facilitators. Further efforts are warranted to develop more successful implementation strategies.

A pre-implementation examination of barriers and facilitators of an electronic prospective surveillance model for cancer rehabilitation: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

An electronic Prospective Surveillance Model (ePSM) uses patient-reported outcomes to monitor symptoms along the cancer pathway for timely identification and treatment. Randomized controlled trials show that ePSMs can effectively manage treatment-related adverse effects. However, an understanding of optimal approaches for implementing these systems into routine cancer care is limited. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators prior to the implementation of an ePSM to inform the selection of implementation strategies.

METHODS

A qualitative study using virtual focus groups and individual interviews was conducted with cancer survivors, oncology healthcare providers, and clinic leadership across four cancer centres in Canada. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided the interviews and analysis of barriers and facilitators based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process).

RESULTS

We conducted 13 focus groups and nine individual interviews with 13 patient participants and 56 clinic staff. Of the 39 CFIR constructs, 18 were identified as relevant determinants to the implementation. The adaptability, relative advantage, and complexity of an ePSM emerged as key intervention-level factors that could influence implementation. Knowledge of the system was important at the individual level. Within the inner setting, major determinants were the potential fit of an ePSM with clinical workflows (compatibility) and the resources that could be dedicated to the implementation effort (readiness for implementation). In the outer setting, meeting the needs of patients and the availability of rehabilitation supports were key determinants. Engaging various stakeholders was critical at the process level.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving the implementation of ePSMs in routine cancer care has the potential to facilitate early identification and management of treatment-related adverse effects, thereby improving quality of life. This study provides insight into important factors that may influence the implementation of an ePSM, which can be used to select appropriate implementation strategies to address these factors.