Search

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. Method(s): 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. Result(s): 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(s): 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.Copyright © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd

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. Method(s): 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. Result(s): 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(s): 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.Copyright © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd

Mineral ownership in Australia is generally vested in the individual states, but freehold mineral titles still remain for minerals not proclaimed Crown minerals at the time the land was first alienated from the Crown; coal in New South Wales was returned to the state in 1981. The states and the Northern Territory have all enacted legislation covering exploration, mining and related activities, while most are also introducing provisions to facilitate implementation of the Native Title Act. Australia offers security of tenure, recognition of the rights and claims of all stakeholders, administrative efficiency and an equitable cost structure, though there are currently delays and inefficiencies resulting from the move into a new era of land ownership and cultural awareness., Mineral ownership in Australia is generally vested in the individual states, but freehold mineral titles still remain for minerals not proclaimed Crown minerals at the time the land was first alienated from the Crown; coal in New South Wales was returned to the state in 1981. The states and the Northern Territory have all enacted legislation covering exploration, mining and related activities, while most are also introducing provisions to facilitate implementation of the Native Title Act. Australia offers security of tenure, recognition of the rights and claims of all stakeholders, administrative efficiency and an equitable cost structure, though there are currently delays and inefficiencies resulting from the move into a new era of land ownership and cultural awareness.

An overview is given of the process the state follows in negotiating native title claims, the benefits of indigenous land use agreements as a framework for negotiation and the current review of the state's legislation on indigenous cultural heritage. Queenland prefers negotation to litigation for determining native title and will recognise native title wherever it can be shown to exist, so long as all existing interests are protected. Agreements between the state and indigenous communities fall into three broad categories: statements of intent or commitment, framework agreements and specific purpose agreements. Two indigenous land use agreements are examined: the statewide model and the Kalkadoon agreement. Their impact on training and employment opportunities for Queensland's indigenous communities is highlighted., An overview is given of the process the state follows in negotiating native title claims, the benefits of indigenous land use agreements as a framework for negotiation and the current review of the state's legislation on indigenous cultural heritage. Queenland prefers negotation to litigation for determining native title and will recognise native title wherever it can be shown to exist, so long as all existing interests are protected. Agreements between the state and indigenous communities fall into three broad categories: statements of intent or commitment, framework agreements and specific purpose agreements. Two indigenous land use agreements are examined: the statewide model and the Kalkadoon agreement. Their impact on training and employment opportunities for Queensland's indigenous communities is highlighted.