Search

Few rigorous studies provide a clear description of the methodological approach of developing an evidence-based implementation intervention, prior to implementation at scale. This study describes the development, mapping, rating, and review of the implementation strategies for the Care to Quit smoking cessation trial, prior to application in nine cancer services across Australia. Key stakeholders were engaged in the process from conception through to rating, reviewing and refinement of strategies and principles. An initial scoping review identified 21 barriers to provision of evidence-based smoking cessation care to patients with cancer, which were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to identify relevant intervention functions. The mapping identified 26 relevant behaviour change techniques, summarised into 11 implementation strategies. The implementation strategies were rated and reviewed against the BCW Affordability, Practicality, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects/safety, and Equity criteria by key stakeholders during two interactive workshops to facilitate a focus on feasible interventions likely to resonate with clinical staff. The implementation strategies and associated intervention tools were then collated by form and function to provide a practical guide for implementing the intervention. This study illustrates the rigorous use of theories and frameworks to arrive at a practical intervention guide, with potential to inform future replication and scalability of evidence-based implementation across a range of health service settings.The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10742-022-00288-6.

Background The COVID‐19 pandemic has challenged cancer care globally, introducing resource limitations and competing risks into clinical practice. Aims To describe the COVID‐19 impact on medical oncology care provision in an Australian setting. Methods Calvary Mater Newcastle and Newcastle Private Hospital medical oncology data from 1 February to 31 April 2019 versus 2020 were retrospectively analysed. Results Three hundred and sixty‐four inpatient admissions occurred in 2020, 21% less than in 2019. Total inpatient days decreased by 22% (2842 vs 2203). April was most impacted (36% and 44% fewer admissions and inpatient days respectively). Mean length of stay remained unchanged (6.4 vs 6.2 days, P = 0.7). In all, 5072 outpatient consultations were conducted, including 417 new‐patient consultations (4% and 6% increase on 2019 respectively). Telephone consultations (0 vs 1380) replaced one‐quarter of face‐to‐face consultations (4859 vs 3623, −25%), with minimal telehealth use (6 vs 69). Day Treatment Centre encounters remained stable (3751 vs 3444, −8%). The proportion of new patients planned for palliative treatment decreased (35% vs 28%, P = 0.04), observation increased (16% vs 23%, P = 0.04) and curative intent treatment was unchanged (both 41%). Recruiting clinical trials decreased by one‐third (45 vs 30), two trials were activated (vs 5 in 2019) and 45% fewer patients consented to trial participation (62 vs 34). Conclusion Our medical oncology teams adapted rapidly to COVID‐19 with significant changes to care provision, including fewer hospital admissions, a notable transition to telephone‐based outpatient clinics and reduced clinical trial activity. The continuum of care was largely defended despite pandemic considerations and growing service volumes.

e14029 Background: A significant delay in oncology patient journey through emergency department (ED) due to various reasons such as multiple specialists involved, difficulty in accessing timely advice from extremely busy inpatient/outpatient oncology teams, etc. In order to streamline admissions and discharges for oncology patients, a new model of care was created with the introduction of oncology nurse practitioner (ONP) at Calvary Mater Newcastle ED. This model operated during business hours three days a week with an aim to improve continuity of care, to enhance patients’ experience and meet organisations key performance indicators (KPIs). Limited research into the impact of these services on patient care and patient experience, particularly from service users’ perspective. Methods: A retrospective audit (6 months) has been undertaken to determine the impact of this model of care on time to specialty transfer, number of admissions versus discharges and patients representations through ED when ONP was available versus standard care. Results: During the audit period, ONP reviewed 149 patients. Fifty-four (36%) patients were discharged and of those 6 (11%) returned (within 28 days) with same or related issues. There was an average reduction in time to disposition planning for ED oncology patients of approximately 83 (193 vs 110) minutes when ONP was present at ED (one month review). Using a raw bed day costing, this resulted in a significant financial saving. Further cost analysis of this model is underway. Conclusions: The introduction of ONP into an acute care hospital ED has proven to be effective in terms of continuity of patient care, financial savings and assisted ED in meeting KPIs. The perception within the senior emergency management team is that this new model of care has been an unqualified success. ONP has rapidly and effectively joined emergency team and has seamlessly adjusted practice to the new environment. ED remains highly supportive of this new model of care. This model of care is one that could be translated easily to other specialities. Further analysis will be presented at the time of ASCO meeting.