Search

Introduction: Facilitators to implement shared cancer follow‐up care into clinical practice include mechanisms to allow the oncologist to continue overseeing the care of their patient, two‐way information sharing and clear follow‐up protocols for general practitioners (GPs). This paper aimed to evaluate patients, GPs and radiation oncologists (ROs) acceptance of a shared care intervention. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted pre‐ and post intervention with patients that were 3 years post radiotherapy treatment for breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, their RO, and their GP. Inductive and deductive thematical analysis was employed. Results: Thirty‐two participants were interviewed (19 patients, 9 GPs, and 4 ROs). Pre intervention, there was support for GPs to play a greater role in cancer follow‐up care, however, patients were concerned about the GPs cancer‐specific skills. Patients, GPs and ROs were concerned about increasing the GPs workload. Post intervention, participants were satisfied that the GPs had specific skills and that the impact on GP workload was comparable to writing a referral. However, GPs expressed concern about remuneration. GPs and ROs felt the model provided patient choice and were suitable for low‐risk, stable patients around 2–3 years post treatment. Patients emphasised that they trusted their RO to advise them on the most appropriate follow‐up model suited to their individual situation. The overall acceptance of shared care depended on successful health technology to connect the GP and RO. There were no differences in patient acceptance between rural, regional, and cancer types. ROs presented differences in acceptance for the different cancer types, with breast cancer strongly supported. Conclusion: Patients, GPs and ROs felt this shared cancer follow‐up model of care was acceptable, but only if the RO remained directly involved and the health technology worked. There is a need to review funding and advocate for health technology advances to support integration. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients treated with curative radiotherapy for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer, their RO and their GPs were actively involved in this study by giving their consent to be interviewed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech and language therapists (SLTs) use videofluoroscopic swallow study (VFSS) results to manage dysphagia. Yet, in some services only doctors can directly request a VFSS, potentially creating workflow inefficiencies and delaying patient access to VFSS. An alternative model, where SLTs directly refer patients for VFSS, is used in many services in the UK and Australia. However, processes for implementing and sustaining this model have not been reported. Aims: To evaluate the implementation of an SLT‐led inpatient VFSS referring model using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to ascertain implementation barriers, facilitators and critical sustainability factors. Methods & Procedures: This implementation evaluation examined stakeholder perceptions of implementing the SLT‐led VFSS referring model via interviews of (1) SLTs who treat and refer inpatients for VFSS; (2) doctors who manage and refer inpatients for VFSS; (3) radiologists; and (4) trained VFSS referring SLTs. The CFIR was used to prospectively guide implementation planning, evaluation and outcome reporting, regarding barriers, facilitators and sustainability factors. Outcomes & Results: Implementation facilitators were (1) the advantage of SLT‐led VFSS referring over the standard model (doctors referring), in promoting high‐quality VFSS referrals; (2) compatibility of the model with the SLT skill set; (3) supportive communication networks between staff groups; and (4) engaging stakeholders throughout implementation. Adequate availability of trained VFSS referring SLTs was both a barrier and a facilitator of implementation. It was also a critical sustainability factor, along with ongoing staff education and outcome monitoring. Conclusions & Implications: The CFIR supported systematic evaluation of implementation facilitators and barriers, and adjustment of factors critical for implementing and sustaining the new model. Findings may assist other organizations to establish the SLT‐led VFSS referring model. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Models where SLTs directly refer patients for VFSS have been described in the literature, with evidence of appropriate referrals and adherence to radiation safety standards. However, the process for establishing and sustaining this referring model has not been published. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study describes the process and outcomes of implementing an SLT‐led VFSS referring model, using the CFIR. A key advantage of the new model that facilitated implementation was the improved quality of VFSS referrals compared with the standard referring model. Important facilitating factors in the environment were the compatibility of the model with SLTs' skillset and supportive communication network between doctors and SLTs. Initially, an implementation barrier was the inadequate availability of trained SLT referrers. Using proactive implementation strategies, more referrers were trained (which was a facilitating factor for implementing and sustaining the model). What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This study highlights that successful implementation requires more than just an effective model. Features of the environment require consideration to minimize barriers and optimize facilitating factors, supported by proactive implementation strategies. Planning and evaluating implementation processes and outcomes using a standardized implementation framework such as CFIR aided understanding of barriers and facilitators for introducing the SLT‐led VFSS referring model. This process may assist other services to implement the model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]