Clues to address barriers for access to proton therapy in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Netherlands has National Indication Protocols on proton therapy (PT) to select patients who benefit most from PT. However, referrals to proton therapy centres (PTCs) are lagging. The objective of this research is to identify the barriers for access to PT and to design interventions to address these barriers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a nationwide survey among radiation oncologists (ROs), and semi- structured in-depth interviews with ROs and patients. Subsequently, four workshops were held, in which ROs from one PTC and ROs from referring hospitals participated. The workshops were based on design-thinking research, where ideas were co-created on a multidisciplinary basis to encourage joint problem ownership. Kruskal Wallis and X2 tests were used to analyze data. RESULTS: The most prominent barriers mentioned by ROs were patient selection, poor logistics, and logistical worries about the combination of radiation treatment with chemotherapy. Patients pointed out the inefficient coordination between organisations, poor communication, travel issues and discomfort during treatment. Clues to increase referrals revealed the need for additional tools for patient selection and innovative ways to improve logistics. A case manager was identified as beneficial to the patients' journey as part of a multidisciplinary approach. Such an approach should include the active involvement of medical oncologists, surgeons and pulmonologists. CONCLUSION: Barriers for access to PT were identified and prioritized in the inter-organisational care- pathway of proton therapy patients in The Netherlands. Innovative solutions were co- designed to solve the barriers.

Breast cancer patients' most important quality of life themes for a radiotherapy decision aid.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The BRASA patient decision aid (BRASA-PtDA) facilitates shared decision making for breast cancer patients (BCPs) facing a radiotherapy treatment decision. During evaluations, patients indicated the wish for quantitative information on side effects. Therefore, this study assessed BCPs opinion on which and how information on side effects should be incorporated in the BRASA-PtDA. METHODS: A workshop was organized with BCPs (n = 9), researchers (n = 5) and clinicians (n = 3). Subsequently, a survey was sent to BCPs (n = 744) investigating the generalisability of the workshop findings, and posing additional questions. The survey entailed multiple choice questions on quality of life themes, the use of a decision aid and risk communication. RESULTS: The workshop revealed BCPs wish for a layered, all encompassing information system. Information on the impact of side effects on daily life was preferred above the risk of these side effects. The survey revealed that important quality of life (QoL) themes were having energy (81%; n = 605), arm function (61%; n = 452), pain (55%; n = 410). Despite the focus on qualitative effects in the workshop, 89% of the survey respondents also wanted to be informed on individualized risks of side effects. 54% Of the survey respondents had never heard of a PtDA. CONCLUSIONS: BCPs preferred information on the impact of side effects, but also their individualized risks on side effects. Most important QoL themes were having enough energy, arm function and pain. Consequently, the BRASA-PtDA should be reshaped, starting with quality of life themes, rather than side effects.

The barriers and facilitators of radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of radical innovations in secondary healthcare. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A systematic review was conducted and presented in accordance with a PRISMA flowchart. The databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched for original publications in English between the 1st of January 2010 and 6th of November 2020. The level of radicalness was determined based on five characteristics of radical innovations. The level of evidence was classified according to the level of evidence scale of the University of Oxford. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as a framework to classify the barriers and facilitators. FINDINGS: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine publications were included, concerning six technological, two organizational and one treatment innovation. The main barriers for radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare were lack of human, material and financial resources, and lack of integration and organizational readiness. The main facilitators included a supportive culture, sufficient training, education and knowledge, and recognition of the expected added value. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review examining the barriers and facilitators of radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare. To ease radical innovation implementation, alternative performance systems may be helpful, including the following prerequisites: (1) Money, (2) Added value, (3) Timely knowledge and integration, (4) Culture, and (5) Human resources (MATCH). This study highlights the need for more high-level evidence studies in this area.