Implementation and evaluation of a new model of nursing practice in radiation oncology

Patients undergoing radiation therapy for cancer face a series of challenges that require support from a multidisciplinary team which includes radiation oncology nurses. However, the specific contribution of nursing, and the models of care that best support the delivery of nursing interventions in the radiotherapy setting, is not well described. In this case study, the Interaction Model of Client Health Behaviour and the associated principles of person-centred care were incorporated into a new model of care that was implemented in one radiation oncology setting in Brisbane, Australia. The new model of care was operationalised through a Primary Nursing/Collaborative Practice framework. To evaluate the impact of the new model for patients and health professionals, multiple sources of data were collected from patients and clinical staff prior to, during, and 18 months following introduction of the practice redesign. One cohort of patients and clinical staff completed surveys incorporating measures of key outcomes immediately prior to implementation of the model, while a second cohort of patients and clinical staff completed these same surveys 18 months following introduction of the model. In-depth interviews were also conducted with nursing, medical and allied health staff throughout the implementation phase to obtain a more comprehensive account of the processes and outcomes associated with implementing such a model. From the patients’ perspectives, this study demonstrated that, although adverse effects of radiotherapy continue to affect patient well-being, patients continue to be satisfied with nursing care in this specialty, and that they generally reported high levels of functioning despite undergoing a curative course of radiotherapy. From the health professionals’ perspective, there was evidence of attitudinal change by nursing staff within the radiotherapy department which reflected a greater understanding and appreciation of a more person-centred approach to care. Importantly, this case study has also confirmed that a range of factors need to be considered when redesigning nursing practice in the radiotherapy setting, as the challenges associated with changing traditional practices, ensuring multidisciplinary approaches to care, and resourcing a new model were experienced. The findings from this study suggest that the move from a relatively functional approach to a person-centred approach in the radiotherapy setting has contributed to some improvements in the provision of individualised and coordinated patient care. However, this study has also highlighted that primary nursing may be limited in its approach as a framework for patient care unless it is supported by a whole team approach, an appropriate supportive governance model, and sufficient resourcing. Introducing such a model thus requires effective education, preparation and ongoing support for the whole team. The challenges of providing care in the context of complex interdisciplinary relationships have been highlighted by this study. Aspects of this study may assist in planning further nursing interventions for patients undergoing radiotherapy for cancer, and continue to enhance the contribution of the radiation oncology nurse to improved patient outcomes.

Person centred nursing care in radiation oncology : a case study

Purpose The aim of this case study is to describe clinical staff perceptions of implementing a person-centred model of nursing in an outpatient radiotherapy treatment department, using a Primary Nursing/Collaborative Practice framework. The questions are: 1) what are the nursing and radiotherapy staff perspectives of the changed model of care, 2) what factors impacted on aspects of the evolving model?, and 3) how was interdisciplinary collaboration influenced by the new model? Methods An instrumental case study addressed the multiple perspectives of several radiotherapy health professionals, within a qualitative approach, to assess the new model of nursing care. Interview data were obtained from thirteen clinical staff over a six month period approximately one year after the model was implemented. Results The new model supports nurses to work more closely with the individual patient, with some perceived positive patient outcomes. Nurses reported increased satisfaction with their work, more autonomy and responsibility, and improved working relationships with medical staff. They also became more aware of the holistic approach to support positive patient outcomes. However, this study acknowledged that education was required for nurses to provide holistic care, especially in the context of complex interdisciplinary relationships. Conclusions A person-centred nursing approach in radiotherapy represents a radical change to the functional approach, providing some benefits for patients. However, the challenges of providing holistic care in the context of complex interdisciplinary relationships are evident, and this study acknowledges the importance of a team approach to addressing changes in practice in the future.

Radiation therapist peer review: Raising the bar on quality and safety in radiation oncology

Purpose An emerging developmental tool to help radiation therapists achieve better outcomes is 'peer review'. This review of the current literature summarises the challenges and benefits of peer review in both individual and departmental practice. Discussion There is compelling evidence supporting peer review implementation at both individual and department level in many professions. Implementing peer review requires that radiation therapists and other radiation oncology professionals embrace a culture that supports safety. Peer review can identify trends and barriers associated with quality radiotherapy and share best practice or recommend changes accordingly. Support for peer review must come from pre-registration educational systems as well as clinical managers. Continuing professional development in the workplace is nurtured by peer review of radiotherapy practice and an aptitude for this should be viewed as important to the profession as technical and clinical skills. Conclusion It is clear that peer review has the potential to facilitate reflective practice, improve staff motivation and help foster a culture of quality and safety in radiation oncology. To drive the issues of quality and safety a step further radiation therapists need to accept the challenge of adopting peer review methods in day-to-day practice.

Patients' outcomes related to person-centred nursing care in radiation oncology: A case study

Abstract Purpose The aim of this case study is to describe patients' responses to nursing care following the implementation of a person-centred model in a radiation oncology department. Method An instrumental case study design utilised surveys to collect data on a range of key patient outcomes: patient satisfaction (PSS), informational issues (RSEP), quality of life (FACT_G), comfort (RTCQ), and emotional status (HADS). This occurred at the beginning of, and twelve months following, the implementation of the new model of care. Results This study demonstrated that, although adverse effects of radiotherapy continue to affect patient well-being in the latter part of their course of radiation therapy, patients continue to be satisfied with nursing care. There were significant differences between groups in perceptions of the care environment and the use of the nurse as an acknowledged source of information are noteworthy, since these variables were key targets of the new model of care. The finding that nurses were seen by the post-implementation cohort as more likely to be a source of information is an important indicator that the nurses' presence was noted by patients, and they generally reported high levels of functioning despite undergoing a curative course of radiotherapy. Conclusion The person-centred nursing approach in the radiotherapy setting has contributed to some improvements in the provision of patient care. Aspects of this study may assist in planning further nursing interventions for patients undergoing radiotherapy for cancer, and continue to enhance the contribution of the radiation oncology nurse to improved patient outcomes.

Analysis of an inter-centre, web-based radiation oncology peer-review case conference

Purpose Peer-review programmes in radiation oncology are used to facilitate the process and evaluation of clinical decision-making. However, web-based peer-review methods are still uncommon. This study analysed an inter-centre, web-based peer-review case conference as a method of facilitating the decision-making process in radiation oncology. Methodology A benchmark form was designed based on the American Society for Radiation Oncology targets for radiation oncology peer review. This was used for evaluating the contents of the peer-review case presentations on 40 cases, selected from three participating radiation oncology centres. A scoring system was used for comparison of data, and a survey was conducted to analyse the experiences of radiation oncology professionals who attended the web-based peer-review meetings in order to identify priorities for improvement. Results The mean scores for the evaluations were 82·7, 84·5, 86·3 and 87·3% for cervical, prostate, breast and head and neck presentations, respectively. The survey showed that radiation oncology professionals were confident about the role of web-based peer-reviews in facilitating sharing of good practice, stimulating professionalism and promoting professional growth. The participants were satisfied with the quality of the audio and visual aspects of the web-based meeting. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that simple inter-centre web-based peer-review case conferences are a feasible technique for peer review in radiation oncology. Limitations such as data security and confidentiality can be overcome by the use of appropriate structure and technology. To drive the issues of quality and safety a step further, small radiotherapy departments may need to consider web-based peer-review case conference as part of their routine quality assurance practices.

Molecular biology: the key to personalised treatment in radiation oncology?

We know considerably more about what makes cells and tissues resistant or sensitive to radiation than we did 20 years ago. Novel techniques in molecular biology have made a major contribution to our understanding at the level of signalling pathways. Before the “New Biology” era, radioresponsiveness was defined in terms of physiological parameters designated as the five Rs. These are: repair, repopulation, reassortment, reoxygenation and radiosensitivity. Of these, only the role of hypoxia proved to be a robust predictive and prognostic marker, but radiotherapy regimens were nonetheless modified in terms of dose per fraction, fraction size and overall time, in ways that persist in clinical practice today. The first molecular techniques were applied to radiobiology about two decades ago and soon revealed the existence of genes/proteins that respond to and influence the cellular outcome of irradiation. The subsequent development of screening techniques using microarray technology has since revealed that a very large number of genes fall into this category. We can now obtain an adequately robust molecular signature, predicting for a radioresponsive phenotype using gene expression and proteomic approaches. In parallel with these developments, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) can now detect specific biological molecules such as haemoglobin and glucose, so revealing a 3D map of tumour blood flow and metabolism. The key to personalised radiotherapy will be to extend this capability to the proteins of the molecular signature that determine radiosensitivity.

Quality assessment in radiation oncology

Oncologic specialty societies and multidisciplinary collaborative groups have dedicated considerable effort to developing evidence-based quality indicators (QIs) to facilitate quality improvement, accreditation, benchmarking, reimbursement, maintenance of certification, and regulatory reporting. In particular, radiation oncology as a field has a long history of organized quality assessment efforts, and continues to work toward developing consensus quality standards in the face of continually evolving technologies and standards of care. The present report provides a comprehensive review of the current state of quality assessment in radiation oncology, with an emphasis on recent quality improvement efforts. Specifically, this report aims to highlight implications of the healthcare quality movement for radiation oncology and review existing efforts to define and measure quality in the field, with particular focus on dimensions of quality that are specific to radiation oncology within the "big picture" of oncologic quality improvement efforts.^

High-Risk Merkel Cell Carcinoma of the Skin Treated With Synchronous Carboplatin/Etoposide and Radiation: A Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group Study-TROG 96:07

Purpose: The effectiveness of synchronous carboplatin, etoposide, and radiation therapy was prospectively assessed in a group of patients with high-risk Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) of the skin. Patients and Methods: Patients were eligible if they had disease localized to the primary site and nodes, and were required to have at least one of the following high risk features: recurrence after initial therapy, involved nodes, primary tumor size greater than 1 cm, gross residual disease after surgery, or occult primary with nodes. Radiation was delivered to the primary site and nodes to a dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks and synchronous carboplatin (area under the curve, 4.5) and intravenous etoposide 80 mg/m(2) days 1 to 3 was given in weeks 1, 4, 7, and 10. The median age of the group was 67 (range, 43-86) years, and there were 39 males and 14 females. Involved nodes (stage II) were present in 33 cases (62%). The sites involved were head and neck (22 patients), occult primary (13 patients), upper limb (eight patients), lower limb (eight patients), and trunk (two patients). Results: Fifty-three patients were entered between 1996 and 2001. The median potential follow-up was 48 months. There were no treatment related deaths. The 3-year overall survival, locoregional control, and distant control were 76%, 75%, and 76%, respectively. Tumor site and the presence of nodes were factors that were predictive for local control and survival. Multivariate analysis indicated that the major factor influencing survival was the presence of nodes; however, this was not a significant factor in locoregional control. Conclusion: High levels of locoregional control and survival have been achieved with the addition of chemotherapy to radiation treatment for high-risk MCC of the skin. The role of chemoradiotherapy for high-risk MCC warrants further investigation. (C) 2003 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Quality assurance experience with the randomized neuropathic bone pain trial (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, 96.05)

Background and purpose: Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 96.05 is a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing a single 8 Gy with 20 Gy in five fractions of radiotherapy (RT) for neuropathic pain due to bone metastases. This paper summarizes the quality assurance (QA) activities for the first 234 patients (accrual target 270). Materials and methods: Independent audits to assess compliance with eligibility/exclusion criteria and appropriateness of treatment of the index site were conducted after each cohort of approximately 45 consecutive patients. Reported serious adverse events (SAEs) in the form of cord/cauda equina compression or pathological fracture developing at the index site were investigated and presented in batches to the Independent Data Monitoring Committee. Finally, source data verification of the RT prescription page and treatment records was undertaken for each of the first 234 patients to assess compliance with the protocol. Results: Only one patient was found conclusively not to have genuine neuropathic pain, and there were no detected 'geographical misses' with RT fields. The overall rate of detected infringements for other eligibility criteria over five audits (225 patients) was 8% with a dramatic improvement after the first audit. There has at no stage been a statistically significant difference in SAEs by randomization arm. There was a 22% rate of RT protocol variations involving ten of the 14 contributing centres, although the rate of major dose violations (more than +/- 10% from protocol dose) was only 6% with no statistically significant difference by randomization arm (P = 0.44). Conclusions: QA auditing is an essential but time-consuming component of RT trials, including those assessing palliative endpoints. Our experience confirms that all aspects should commence soon after study activation. Crown Copyright (C) 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Randomized trial of 8 Gy in 1 versus 20 Gy in 5 fractions of radiotherapy for neuropathic pain due to bone metastases (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, TROG 96.05)

Background and purpose: Despite numerous randomized trials investigating radiotherapy (RT) fractionation schedules for painful bone metastases, there are very few data on RT for bone metastases causing pain with a neuropathic component. The Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group undertook a randomized trial comparing the efficacy of a single 8 Gy (8/1) with 20 Gy in 5 fractions (20/5) for this type of pain. Materials and methods: Eligible patients had radiological evidence of bone metastases from a known malignancy with no change in systemic therapy within 6 weeks before or anticipated within 4 weeks after RT, no other metastases along the distribution of the neuropathic pain and no clinical or radiological evidence of cord/cauda equina compression. All patients gave written informed consent. Primary endpoints were pain response within 2 months of commencement of RT and time to treatment failure (TTF). The hypothesis was that 8/1 is at least as effective as 20/5 and the planned sample size was 270 patients. Results: Between February 1996 and December 2002, 272 patients were randomized (8/1:20/5 = 137:135) from 15 centres (Australia 11, New Zealand 3, UK 1). The commonest primary cancers were lung (31%), prostate (29%) and breast (8%); index sites were spine (89%), rib (9%), other (2%); 72% of patients were males and the median age was 67 (range 2989). The median overall survival (95% CI) for all randomized patients was 4.8 mo (4.2-5.7 mo). The intention-to-treat overall response rates (95% Cl) for 8/1 vs 20/5 were 53% (45-62%) vs 61% (53-70%), P = 0.18. Corresponding figures for complete response were 26% (18-34%) vs 27% (19-35%), P = 0.89. The estimated median TTFs (95% CI) were 2.4 mo (2.0-3.3 mo) vs 3.7 mo (3.1-5.9 mo) respectively. The hazard ratio (95% Cl) for the comparison of TTF curves was 1.35 (0.99-1.85), log-rank P = 0.056. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of re-treatment, cord compression or pathological fracture by arm. Conclusions: 8/1 was not shown to be as effective as 20/5, nor was it statistically significantly worse. Outcomes were generally poorer for 8/1, although the quantitative differences were relatively small. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Whole brain irradiation following surgery or radiosurgery for solitary brain metastases: Mature results of a prematurely closed randomized Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group trial (TROG 98.05)

We evaluated the effect of adjuvant whole brain irradiation (WBI) after surgery or radiosurgery for solitary brain metastases in a Phase III multicentre trial with randomization to 30-36 Gy WBI or observation. The study was closed early due to slow accrual after 19 patients (WBI 10, observation 9). There was no difference in CNS failure-free survival or overall survival between the arms. There was a trend to reduced CNS relapse with WBI (30% versus 78%, P = 0.12). Limited analysis of quality of life and neurocognitive function data revealed no evidence of difference between the arms. Our results are not inconsistent with two larger randomized trials and support the use of upfront WBI to decrease brain recurrence in this setting. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Stage is not a reliable indicator of tumor volume in non-small cell lung cancer: a preliminary analysis of the trans-tasman radiation oncology group 99-05 database

Background: Tumor volume has been shown to be a prognostic factor for the response of some tumors to radiotherapy. TNM stage has prognostic value for patients treated surgically for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its value is less clear for patients treated by nonsurgical means. This may be because tumor size is not a consistent determinant of T stage or stage group. As part of the preliminary analyses for the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 99-05 study, the authors performed this analysis to determine to what extent stage reflects tumor volume. Methods: In this prospective multicenter observational study, patients had to have histologically proven NSCLC, no evidence of disease beyond the primary site or thoracic lymph nodes, and been planned for radical radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. Tumor volume measurements were based on computed tomography-based treatment planning images. Results: Four hundred four patients were available for analysis. There was a strong correlation between (log) maximum tumor diameter and (log) tumor volume (r = 0.93, p < 0.001). Although there was a highly significant trend of increasing volume with increasing T stage and stage group, when tumors were categorized into four groups according to increasing volume, there was only 55% concordance with T stage and 67% concordance with stage group. Conclusions: There is limited correlation between tumor size and disease stage in patients with NSCLC. This justifies documentation and investigation of size as a potential prognostic factor independent of stage. Maximum tumor diameter may be an adequate substitute for volume as a measurement of size.

Re-examining the evidence in radiation dermatitis management literature : an overview and a critical appraisal of systematic reviews

Purpose: To provide an overview and a critical appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs) of published interventions for the prevention/management of radiation dermatitis. Methods and Materials: We searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We also manually searched through individual reference lists of potentially eligible articles and a number of key journals in the topic area. Two authors screened all potential articles and included eligible SRs. Two authors critically appraised and extracted key findings from the included reviews using AMSTAR (the measurement tool for “assessment of multiple systematic reviews”). Results: Of 1837 potential titles, 6 SRs were included. A number of interventions have been reported to be potentially beneficial for managing radiation dermatitis. Interventions evaluated in these reviews included skin care advice, steroidal/nonsteroidal topical agents, systemic therapies, modes of radiation delivery, and dressings. However, all the included SRs reported that there is insufficient evidence supporting any single effective intervention. The methodological quality of the included studies varied, and methodological shortfalls in these reviews might create biases to the overall results or recommendations for clinical practice. Conclusions: An up-to-date high-quality SR in the prevention/management of radiation dermatitis is needed to guide practice and direction for future research. We recommend that clinicians or guideline developers critically evaluate the information of SRs in their decision making.