The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on genitourinary and prostate cancer care and clinical trials: A qualitative exploration of the Australian and New Zealand experience.

PURPOSE: This qualitative study aimed to understand the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic from March to November 2020 on healthcare delivery and clinical trials for genitourinary (GU) cancers in Australia. METHODS: Annually a pre-conference workshop is hosted by the Australian New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group for supportive care health professionals. In November 2020, those that selected to attend were invited to participate in a focus group. Workshop and focus group discussions were recorded and transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Seventy-two individuals involved in GU cancer care and clinical trials took part. Participants described negative changes to GU cancer care and clinical trials from the pandemic due to reduced clinical services and increased wait times. Trial recruitment was paused temporarily during lockdowns, and standard treatment protocols were used to limit hospital visits. Trial process changes included electronic capture of informed consent, home delivery of oral medications, and delegations of assessments. These changes increased administrative activity for clinical trial teams and Human Research Ethics Committees. A transition to telehealth enabled continuity of service delivery and trials but reduced the opportunity for face-to-face patient consultations with increasing concern about the failure to detect supportive care needs. CONCLUSION: The pandemic has prompted a critical review of service delivery and clinical trials for people with GU cancers.

From doctors to ancillary staff: Regional and metropolitan cancer workforce perceptions and distress resulting from COVID-19 pandemic adaptations.

INTRODUCTION: The declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in necessary and rapid changes to health service delivery. In the Australian context, it has been broadly identified that these impacts have been felt by health care workers (HCW) providing care. We aimed to capture oncology HCW perceptions of support, stress, personal ability to meet needs and institutional preparedness across longitudinal periods of COVID-19 response in the early stages of the pandemic. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An electronic survey was developed to measure the weekly impacts and distress experienced by HCW during the early phases of the pandemic. Hospital email communications relating to pandemic directives were noted. HCW included nursing, medical, ancillary staff and allied health team members at 2 study sites, 1 metropolitan and 1 regional center in Queensland, Australia. Descriptive statistics were applied to quantitative data, and a framework analysis for qualitative data. Key themes were synthesized using mixed methods approaches. RESULTS: A total of 176 HCW consented to participate. Four key themes were identified. Key theme 1 was strategies for protection, and included the subthemes of self-isolation, using personal protective equipment (PPE), protecting patients and families and each other. Key theme 2 was navigating rules and keeping up, and included the subthemes of compliance, exceptions, conflict and complex decision fatigue. Key theme 3 was tempered optimism, with subthemes including this is grief, pride in one's place and strategies for coping. Key theme 4 was framing the new normal, with subthemes including using technology, second wave and uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Staff groups reported the emotional impacts of rapid change across clinical areas and centers. Distress corresponded to rapid change amid uncertainty, rather than reported infection rates. These findings give insight into the experiences of patient facing oncology HCW during periods of uncertainty, potentially informing policy in the future.

Scoping to analyze oncology trial participation in Australia.

Equity in oncology clinical trial participation has been declared a global priority. Australia is a key stakeholder in the global clinical trials sphere and managed to maintain high clinical trial activity during the COVID pandemic. Despite these successes, there is paucity of understanding about what influences clinical trial participation in Australia. In the international context, systematic reviews have highlighted that sociodemographic barriers, access to health care, clinical trial inclusion criteria, and attitudes of physicians and patients are factors which influence oncology trial participation. Exploring the factors in Australian health services which influence trial participation is now of significant importance. The lack of clear evidence directly highlights a need to assess the factors that influence oncology trial participation in Australia. We call for review of existing data to identify future directions in Australia which will potentially give deeper insights for the international clinical trial community.

Factors that influence clinical trial participation by patients with cancer in Australia: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials are the backbone of research. It is well recognised that patient participation in clinical trials can be influenced by a myriad of factors such as access to a clinical trial, restrictive trial eligibility criteria and perceptions held by patients or physicians about clinical trials. Australia is a key stakeholder in the global clinical trials sphere. This scoping review protocol aims to identify and map the current literature describing factors that influence clinical trial participation of patients with cancer, in Australia. METHODS AND ANALYSES: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews will be used to conduct this review. Four electronic databases will be systematically searched for relevant published literature on this topic, as a collaborative process involving the lead investigator and a health science librarian. We will hand search of citations and reference lists of the included papers, and a grey literature search through Google scholar, Grey Literature Report, Web of Science Conference Proceedings. All published papers pertaining to patients diagnosed with solid organ or haematological malignancies will be included. Studies which did not involve patients from Australia will also be excluded. A customised data extraction tool will be pilot tested and refined, and subsequently two independent reviewers will perform data screening and extraction. Results will be collated and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews: PRISMA-Scoping Reviews. Quantitative data will be presented using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be synthesised using thematic analyses. This scoping review does not require ethical approval as the methodology focuses on analysing information from available published data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders including consumers, clinicians, professional organisations and policy-makers through peer-reviewed publications and national and international conferences.

Teletrials, the new norm? Expert recommendations for teletrials into the future: Findings from the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Clinical Trial Research Professionals Group Workshop.

INTRODUCTION: The Australasian Teletrial Model was piloted in co-funded sites across Australia. The purpose was to extend the reach of clinical trials using telemedicine to improve equity and access to this treatment pathway for oncology patients. Experts across Australia gathered to share the learnings of implementation so that future directions can be effective and sustainable. METHODS: The 1-day workshop was attended in person and virtually. Attendees were invited to analyze and disseminate the results. Recordings from the presentations were coded independently by three researchers and synthesized. The results were sent to the authorship team for further review to build consensus on the findings in three drafts. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified: "Being on the Same Page," "Building Foundations," "Key Roles in Teletrials," and "Incentives." Although there were many successes that were accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, there is work still to be done. CONCLUSION: The Australasian Teletrial Model has been identified as acceptable and feasible. Future directions need to continue to work on streamlining regulatory processes, implementation and monitoring, and build knowledge to further build networks across Australia.

Semiqualitative research protocol to explore cancer care workforce perceptions of the health system response to COVID-19 preparations in Southeast Queensland, Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Sars-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 officially declared pandemic in March 2020. Health systems worldwide responded with swift changes to increase workflow capacity while protecting the vulnerable, including those with cancer. This led to unprecedented and rapid restructuring of health service provision. Published data from the 2003 SARS pandemic focuses on medical and nursing staff, overlooking other departmental employees such as administration officers or food service workers. Our protocol aims to document directives and adjustments communicated to staff in two cancer care departments and correlate this with measures of distress and perceived preparedness across the spectrum of all staff involved in cancer care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We use a semiqualitative approach comprising weekly diarising of events and simultaneous staff surveys. Principal investigators will document changes at a metropolitan quaternary cancer centre and a regional cancer centre. Communications, directives and changes will be diarised in real time in four executional domains. Simultaneously, prospective voluntary self-administered online surveys will be conducted at regular intervals by staff. The survey assesses the perceived institutional preparedness and personal well-being, with a combination of Likert scaled and open response questions. A semiquantitative self-assessment of distress adapted from National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer is incorporated. Additionally, open-text personal reflections on themes including difficult decisions will be invited. Survey participants will be drawn from various work areas of the cancer care departments: administrative staff, health professionals, for example, allied health, ancillary workers, nursing and medical. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (LNR/2020/QRBW/62982). Published literature on domains of distress neglects categories of healthcare worker who form an essential part of the care delivery team. Our study hopes to gather insights about psychosocial impact and adjustment which could direct responses in future emergencies.

Resilience and ongoing quality care for cancer clinical trials during COVID-19: Experience from a tertiary hospital in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced rapid system-wide changes to be implemented within cancer care at an alarming pace. Clinical trials are a key element of comprehensive cancer care. Ensuring the continuing safe conduct of cancer clinical trials in the context of a pandemic is challenging. METHODS: We aimed to describe the COVID-19 pandemic response of a Cancer Care Clinical Research Unit (CRU) of a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia. We used a mixed methods approach for this case study. Emailed directives from CRU managers to all CRU staff sharing were qualitatively analysed and mapped against our unit activities over longitudinal time points. Data from patient recruitment and protocol deviations were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Mapping activity from 11 March to 30 September 2020 revealed rapid change during the first 2 weeks. Four key strategies to accommodate change were identified: supporting patients and families, introduction of telehealth, accessing investigational product, and social distancing. Early in the pandemic we recognised that our core key stakeholders were integral to our response. When compared to the previous 12 months, our recruitment numbers dropped markedly in early phases of the response but recovered over time, as we accommodated internal and external impacts. CONCLUSION: Our experience of agility as a necessity, adapting to support patients, and managing both clinical research activity and sponsors during the height of the pandemic response is presented here in order to inform future disaster response planning by clinical trial organisations.

COVID-19 and the cancer care workforce: From doctors to ancillary staff.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses daily challenges to the entire oncology workforce. Staff members must absorb multiple executive briefings, adapt to escalating scenario modelling, and seamlessly execute ever-changing operational modes in real-time. The unique threat of looming re-deployment and rationing care add to the uncertainty. We highlight the need for qualitative research to understand the psychosocial impact of these challenges. We posit that the perspective of all team members should be explored: from doctors to ancillary staff.