Designing a referral pathway for patients with non-specific cancer symptoms in Irish primary care: a qualitative study protocol.

346 Background: The CFIR model is one approach to implementing supportive care services. It requires extensive resources, staff training, and reliance on infrastructure. In contrast, the PCSC Program grew organically based on knowledge of patient-expressed needs. Rather than tailoring services to individuals, the PCSC Program offers a menu of services that the patient can choose from with the help of a program coordinator. Methods: We compared the implementation considerations for CFIR (1) to those of the PCSC Program. Results: Patient Needs Assessment & Staffing: CFIR assesses needs at diagnosis using specific tools in the EHR and recommends a care plan formulated by a multidisciplinary team. In contrast, PCSC empowers patients to self-select services from eight modules (see table below) based on their needs after registration, whether at diagnosis or beyond. This flexibility allows the program to operate efficiently, freeing up clinician time for delivering group education sessions and clinic appointments. Resource Management and follow-up: CFIR identifies community resources with a multidisciplinary team. This may require referrals and clinic-specific communication. This approach may lead to inconsistencies and variation in patient experience. In contrast, PCSC provides all services at a single site that is familiar to many patients as it is across from the urology clinic. Clinic visits are in person or virtual, allowing access to all patients across the province. This model eliminates the need for extensive documentation, and the quality of the services is controlled centrally. Since there is transparency on available services from the outset, patients may return as needed, negating the need for individualized formal follow-up assessments. Sustainability and Impact: While CFIR is process-driven, PCSC’s model has supported over 5,288 patients and their families, free of charge, with $3.25 million in philanthropic support over 11 years in addition to grants and government funding, underscoring the community's trust in the program's efficacy and value. Conclusions: CFIR is a structured and resource-intensive approach that focuses on the individual patient. The PCSC Program presents patients with a menu of services known to be of importance to this population and offers a flexible, patient-driven approach. The longevity of the PCSC Program and the patient satisfaction responses suggest that this is an alternative model for delivering supportive care. 1. Stout et al JCO Oncol Pract 20:1173-1181. Attendance for 5288 registrants from 2013 to 09/2024. Modules Attendees 2013-9/2024, n Introduction to PC and Primary Treatment Options 1994 Managing Sexual Function and Intimacy 2461 Management of side effects of ADT 809 Pelvic Floor Physiotherapy for Incontinence 1890 Counselling 852 Metastatic Disease Management 162 Nutrition 1527 Exercise 1336

BackgroundAdvanced physiotherapist-led services have been embedded in specialist orthopaedic and neurosurgical outpatient departments across Queensland, Australia, to ameliorate capacity constraints. Simulation modelling has been used to inform the optimal scale and professional mix of services required to match patient demand. The context and the value of simulation modelling in service planning remain unclear. We aimed to examine the adoption, context and costs of using simulation modelling recommendations to inform service planning.MethodsUsing an implementation science approach, we undertook a prospective, qualitative evaluation to assess the use of discrete event simulation modelling recommendations for service re-design and to explore stakeholder perspectives about the role of simulation modelling in service planning. Five orthopaedic and neurosurgical services in Queensland, Australia, were selected to maximise variation in implementation effectiveness. We used the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) to guide the facilitation and analysis of the stakeholder focus group discussions. We conducted a prospective costing analysis in each service to estimate the costs associated with using simulation modelling to inform service planning.ResultsFour of the five services demonstrated adoption by inclusion of modelling recommendations into proposals for service re-design. Four CFIR constructs distinguished and two CFIR constructs did not distinguish between high versus mixed implementation effectiveness. We identified additional constructs that did not map onto CFIR. The mean cost of implementation was AU$34,553 per site (standard deviation = AU$737).ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first time the context of implementing simulation modelling recommendations in a health care setting, using a validated framework, has been examined. Our findings may provide valuable insights to increase the uptake of healthcare modelling recommendations in service planning.

Overview Skin cancer prevention is a component of the new Cancer Plan 2022–27, which guides the work of the Cancer Institute NSW. To lessen the impact of skin cancer on the community, the Cancer Institute NSW works closely with the NSW Skin Cancer Prevention Advisory Committee, comprising governmental and non-governmental organisation representatives, to develop and implement the NSW Skin Cancer Prevention Strategy. Primary Health Networks and primary care providers are seen as important stakeholders in this work. To guide improvements in skin cancer prevention and inform the development of the next NSW Skin Cancer Prevention Strategy, an up-to-date review of the evidence on the effectiveness and feasibility of skin cancer prevention activities in primary care is required. A research team led by the Daffodil Centre, a joint venture between the University of Sydney and Cancer Council NSW, was contracted to undertake an Evidence Check review to address the questions below. Evidence Check questions This Evidence Check aimed to address the following questions: Question 1: What skin cancer primary prevention activities can be effectively administered in primary care settings? As part of this, identify the key components of such messages, strategies, programs or initiatives that have been effectively implemented and their feasibility in the NSW/Australian context. Question 2: What are the main barriers and enablers for primary care providers in delivering skin cancer primary prevention activities within their setting? Summary of methods The research team conducted a detailed analysis of the published and grey literature, based on a comprehensive search. We developed the search strategy in consultation with a medical librarian at the University of Sydney and the Cancer Institute NSW team, and implemented it across the databases Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Scopus, Cochrane Central and CINAHL. Results were exported and uploaded to Covidence for screening and further selection. The search strategy was designed according to the SPIDER tool for Qualitative and Mixed-Methods Evidence Synthesis, which is a systematic strategy for searching qualitative and mixed-methods research studies. The SPIDER tool facilitates rigour in research by defining key elements of non-quantitative research questions. We included peer-reviewed and grey literature that included skin cancer primary prevention strategies/ interventions/ techniques/ programs within primary care settings, e.g. involving general practitioners and primary care nurses. The literature was limited to publications since 2014, and for studies or programs conducted in Australia, the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Western Europe and Scandinavia. We also included relevant systematic reviews and evidence syntheses based on a range of international evidence where also relevant to the Australian context. To address Question 1, about the effectiveness of skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings, we summarised findings from the Evidence Check according to different skin cancer prevention activities. To address Question 2, about the barriers and enablers of skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings, we summarised findings according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The CFIR is a framework for identifying important implementation considerations for novel interventions in healthcare settings and provides a practical guide for systematically assessing potential barriers and facilitators in preparation for implementing a new activity or program. We assessed study quality using the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) levels of evidence. Key findings We identified 25 peer-reviewed journal articles that met the eligibility criteria and we included these in the Evidence Check. Eight of the studies were conducted in Australia, six in the UK, and the others elsewhere (mainly other European countries). In addition, the grey literature search identified four relevant guidelines, 12 education/training resources, two Cancer Care pathways, two position statements, three reports and five other resources that we included in the Evidence Check. Question 1 (related to effectiveness) We categorised the studies into different types of skin cancer prevention activities: behavioural counselling (n=3); risk assessment and delivering risk-tailored information (n=10); new technologies for early detection and accompanying prevention advice (n=4); and education and training programs for general practitioners (GPs) and primary care nurses regarding skin cancer prevention (n=3). There was good evidence that behavioural counselling interventions can result in a small improvement in sun protection behaviours among adults with fair skin types (defined as ivory or pale skin, light hair and eye colour, freckles, or those who sunburn easily), which would include the majority of Australians. It was found that clinicians play an important role in counselling patients about sun-protective behaviours, and recommended tailoring messages to the age and demographics of target groups (e.g. high-risk groups) to have maximal influence on behaviours. Several web-based melanoma risk prediction tools are now available in Australia, mainly designed for health professionals to identify patients’ risk of a new or subsequent primary melanoma and guide discussions with patients about primary prevention and early detection. Intervention studies have demonstrated that use of these melanoma risk prediction tools is feasible and acceptable to participants in primary care settings, and there is some evidence, including from Australian studies, that using these risk prediction tools to tailor primary prevention and early detection messages can improve sun-related behaviours. Some studies examined novel technologies, such as apps, to support early detection through skin examinations, including a very limited focus on the provision of preventive advice. These novel technologies are still largely in the research domain rather than recommended for routine use but provide a potential future opportunity to incorporate more primary prevention tailored advice. There are a number of online short courses available for primary healthcare professionals specifically focusing on skin cancer prevention. Most education and training programs for GPs and primary care nurses in the field of skin cancer focus on treatment and early detection, though some programs have specifically incorporated primary prevention education and training. A notable example is the Dermoscopy for Victorian General Practice Program, in which 93% of participating GPs reported that they had increased preventive information provided to high-risk patients and during skin examinations. Question 2 (related to barriers and enablers) Key enablers of performing skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings included: • Easy access and availability of guidelines and point-of-care tools and resources • A fit with existing workflows and systems, so there is minimal disruption to flow of care • Easy-to-understand patient information • Using the waiting room for collection of risk assessment information on an electronic device such as an iPad/tablet where possible • Pairing with early detection activities • Sharing of successful programs across jurisdictions. Key barriers to performing skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings included: • Unclear requirements and lack of confidence (self-efficacy) about prevention counselling • Limited availability of GP services especially in regional and remote areas • Competing demands, low priority, lack of time • Lack of incentives.

IntroductionAssertive Community Treatment (ACT), which was developed in the 1970s in the USA, is a programme that supports people with severe mental illness living in the community through a multidisciplinary...

IntroductionBlack communities claim the highest number of cases and deaths due to COVID-19 in Canada. Generating culturally/contextually appropriate public health measures and strategies for vaccine uptake in black communities within...

BackgroundPersons living with HIV (PLHIV) receiving antiretroviral therapy have increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Integration of services for hypertension (HTN), the primary CVD risk factor, into HIV clinics is recommended in Uganda. Our prior work demonstrated multiple gaps in implementation of integrated HTN care along the HIV treatment cascade. In this study, we sought to explore barriers to and facilitators of integrating HTN screening and treatment into HIV clinics in Eastern Uganda.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study at three HIV clinics with low, intermediate, and high HTN care cascade performance, which we classified based on our prior work. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with health services managers, healthcare providers, and hypertensive PLHIV (n = 83). Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Three qualitative researchers used the deductive (CFIR-driven) method to develop relevant codes and themes. Ratings were performed to determine valence and strengths of each CFIR construct regarding influencing HTN/HIV integration.ResultsBarriers to HTN/HIV integration arose from six CFIR constructs: organizational incentives and rewards, available resources, access to knowledge and information, knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, self-efficacy, and planning. The barriers include lack of functional BP machines, inadequate supply of anti-hypertensive medicines, additional workload to providers for HTN services, PLHIV’s inadequate knowledge about HTN care, sub-optimal knowledge, skills and self-efficacy of healthcare providers to screen and treat HTN, and inadequate planning for integrated HTN/HIV services.Relative advantage of offering HTN and HIV services in a one-stop centre, simplicity (non-complex nature) of HTN/HIV integrated care, adaptability, and compatibility of HTN care with existing HIV services are the facilitators for HTN/HIV integration. The remaining CFIR constructs were non-significant regarding influencing HTN/HIV integration.ConclusionUsing the CFIR, we have shown that while there are modifiable barriers to HTN/HIV integration, HTN/HIV integration is of interest to patients, healthcare providers, and managers. Improving access to HTN care among PLHIV will require overcoming barriers and capitalizing on facilitators using a health system strengthening approach. These findings are a springboard for designing contextually appropriate interventions for HTN/HIV integration in low- and middle-income countries.

BackgroundWe developed a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool (‘CRISP’) to provide individualised risk-based advice for colorectal cancer screening. Using known environmental, behavioural, and familial risk factors, CRISP was designed to facilitate tailored screening advice to patients aged 50 to 74 years in general practice. In parallel to a randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool, we developed and evaluated an evidence-based implementation strategy.MethodsQualitative methods were used to explore the implementation of CRISP in general practice. Using one general practice in regional Victoria, Australia, as a ‘laboratory’, we tested ways to embed CRISP into routine clinical practice. General practitioners, nurses, and operations manager co-designed the implementation methods with researchers, focussing on existing practice processes that would be sustainable. Researchers interviewed the staff regularly to assess the successfulness of the strategies employed, and implementation methods were adapted throughout the study period in response to feedback from qualitative interviews.The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the development of the interview guide and intervention strategy. Coding was inductive and themes were developed through consensus between the authors. Emerging themes were mapped onto the CFIR domains and a fidelity checklist was developed to ensure CRISP was being used as intended.ResultsBetween December 2016 and September 2019, 1 interviews were conducted, both face-to-face and via videoconferencing (Zoom). All interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded. Themes were mapped onto the following CFIR domains: (1) ‘characteristics of the intervention’: CRISP was valued but time consuming; (2) ‘inner setting’: the practice was open to changing systems; 3. ‘outer setting’: CRISP helped facilitate screening; (4) ‘individual characteristics’: the practice staff were adaptable and able to facilitate adoption of new clinical processes; and (5) ‘processes’: fidelity checking, and education was important.ConclusionsThese results describe a novel method for exploring implementation strategies for a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in the context of a parallel RCT testing clinical efficacy. The study identified successful and unsuccessful implementation strategies using an adaptive methodology over time. This method emphasised the importance of co-design input to make an intervention like CRISP sustainable for use in other practices and with other risk tools.

Aim:Our aim was to evaluate the implementation process of a comprehensive cardiovascular disease prevention program in general practice, to enhance understanding of influencing factors to implementation success and sustainability, and to learn how to overcome barriers.Background:Cardiovascular disease and its risk factors are the world’s leading cause of mortality, yet can be prevented by addressing unhealthy lifestyle behavior. Nevertheless, the transition toward a prevention-oriented primary health care remains limited. A better understanding of factors facilitating or hindering implementation success and sustainability of prevention programs, and how barriers may be addressed, is needed. This work is part of Horizon 2020 project ‘SPICES’, which aims to implement validated preventive interventions in vulnerable populations.Methods:We conducted a qualitative process evaluation with participatory action research approach of implementation in five general practices. Data were collected through 38 semi-structured individual and small group interviews with seven physicians, 11 nurses, one manager and one nursing assistant, conducted before, during, and after the implementation period. We applied adaptive framework analysis guided by RE-AIM Qualitative Evaluation for Systematic Translation (RE-AIM QuEST) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).Findings:Multiple facilitators and barriers affected reach of vulnerable target populations: adoption by primary health care providers, implementation and fidelity and intention to maintain the program into routine practice. In addition, our study revealed concrete actions, linked to implementation strategies, that can be undertaken to address identified barriers. Prioritization of prevention in general practice vision, ownership, and shared responsibility of all team members, compatibility with existing work processes and systems, expanding nurse’s roles and upskilling competence profiles, supportive financial and regulatory frameworks, and a strong community – health care link are crucial to increase implementation success and long-term maintenance of prevention programs. COVID-19 was a major barrier to the implementation. RE-AIM QuEST, CFIR, and participatory strategies are useful to guide implementation of prevention programs in primary health care.

Routine use of outcome measures in palliative care is recommended to demonstrate and improve quality of care. The use of outcome measures is relatively recent in UK specialist palliative care services and understanding their use in practice is key to successful implementation. We therefore aimed to explore how patient-centred outcome measures are used in specialist palliative care, and identify key considerations for implementation. Multi-method qualitative study (semi-structured interviews and non-participant observation). Patients, family caregivers and health professionals were purposively sampled from nine specialist palliative care services (hospice, hospital and community settings) in London, UK. Framework analysis, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), was undertaken. Thirty eight interviews and nine observations were conducted. Findings are presented according to the five CFIR domains: (I) intervention: participants highlighted advantages, disadvantages and appropriateness of outcome measures in palliative care; (II) outer setting: policy and national drivers are necessary to encourage use of outcome measures; (III) inner setting: information technology infrastructure, organisational drive, and support from peers and leadership were institutional factors that shaped the use of outcome measures; (IV) individual: clear rationale for using outcome measures and skills to use them in practice were essential; (V) implementation: stepwise introduction of outcome measures, regular feedback sessions, and champions/facilitators were important to strengthen routine use. All CFIR domains need consideration for effective implementation. Outcome data needs to be fed back to and interpreted for professionals in order to improve and sustain outcome data collection, and drive meaningful improvements in palliative care.

Implementation considerations of aquatic therapy post-stroke: A qualitative study from Ontario, Canada.

This review aimed to map the current state of knowledge regarding the implementation considerations of existing geriatric-HIV models of care, to identify areas of further research and to inform the implementation of future geriatric-HIV interventions that support older adults living with HIV. We conducted a scoping review that was methodologically informed by the Arskey and O'Malley's 5 step framework and theoretically informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). A systematic search of six databases was conducted for peer-reviewed literature. The grey literature was also searched. Article screening was performed in duplicate. Data was extracted for the purpose of this secondary analysis using a data extraction template informed by the CFIR. Data was inductively and deductively analyzed. In total, 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. The models of care described varied in terms of their location and setting, the number and type of care providers involved, the mechanism of patient referral, the type of assessments and interventions performed and the methods of longitudinal patient follow-up. Four key categories emerged to describe factors that influenced their implementation: care provider buy-in, patient engagement, mechanisms of communication and collaboration, and available resources. The findings from this scoping review provide an initial understanding of the key factors to consider when implementing geriatric-HIV models of care. We recommend health system planners consider mechanisms of communication and collaboration, opportunities for care provider buy-in, patient engagement and available resources. Future research should explore implementation in more diverse settings to understand the nuances that influence implementation and care delivery.

An understanding of contextual factors that influence whether general practitioners advise their patients to be screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) might guide interventions to increase screening participation from its persistently low rate. We report on the use of a theory-based tool to explore contextual factors that might influence implementation of a novel quality improvement (QI) intervention to increase CRC screening in general practice (CRC-QI). The objective was to identify and incorporate strategies into the intervention that will enable flexible implementation across different practice settings. A qualitative study to explore contextual facilitators of, and barriers to, the implementation of a novel CRC-QI intervention. Eighteen staff, from three self-nominated general practices, participated in focus group discussions. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which included constructs relevant to CRC screening in primary care, guided the formative evaluation. Findings were aligned to the CFIR model using a deductive thematic analysis. Contextual facilitators of, and barriers to, the implementation of the CRC-QI intervention were identified in each CFIR domain and CRC-relevant construct. Five consistent themes were identified that potentially influence elements of the CRC-QI intervention: priority setting and incentives, information technology, patient-level barriers, clinical practice, and the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP). Participants proposed that incentive payments and NBCSP policy changes (outer-setting strategies) would facilitate organisational change (inner-setting strategies) and the effective implementation of the CRC-QI intervention. There may be an opportunity to better engage general practice in CRC screening via outer-setting constructs that support existing clinical practice. For example, improvements to the National Cancer Screening Register and Quality Improvement Incentive - Practice Incentives Program (PIP) could be made without altering the NBCSP design.

BackgroundDespite advances in managing secondary health complications after spinal cord injury (SCI), challenges remain in developing targeted community health strategies. In response, the SCI Health Maintenance Tool (SCI-HMT) was developed between 2018 and 2023 in NSW, Australia to support people with SCI and their general practitioners (GPs) to promote better community self-management. Successful implementation of innovations such as the SCI-HMT are determined by a range of contextual factors, including the perspectives of the innovation recipients for whom the innovation is intended to benefit, who are rarely included in the implementation process. During the digitizing of the booklet version of the SCI-HMT into a website and App, we used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a tool to guide collection and analysis of qualitative data from a range of innovation recipients to promote equity and to inform actionable findings designed to improve the implementation of the SCI-HMT.MethodsData from twenty-three innovation recipients in the development phase of the SCI-HMT were coded to the five CFIR domains to inform a semi-structured interview guide. This interview guide was used to prospectively explore the barriers and facilitators to planned implementation of the digital SCI-HMT with six health professionals and four people with SCI. A team including researchers and innovation recipients then interpreted these data to produce a reflective statement matched to each domain. Each reflective statement prefaced an actionable finding, defined as alterations that can be made to a program to improve its adoption into practice.ResultsFive reflective statements synthesizing all participant data and linked to an actionable finding to improve the implementation plan were created. Using the CFIR to guide our research emphasized how partnership is the key theme connecting all implementation facilitators, for example ensuring that the tone, scope, content and presentation of the SCI-HMT balanced the needs of innovation recipients alongside the provision of evidence-based clinical information.ConclusionsUnderstanding recipient perspectives is an essential contextual factor to consider when developing implementation strategies for healthcare innovations. The revised CFIR provided an effective, systematic method to understand, integrate and value recipient perspectives in the development of an implementation strategy for the SCI-HMT.Trial registrationN/A.

Up to half of the children with new-onset type 1 diabetes present to the hospital with diabetic ketoacidosis, a life-threatening condition that can develop because of diagnostic delay. Three-quarters of Australian children visit their general practitioner (GP) the week before presenting to the hospital with diabetic ketoacidosis. Our prototype, DIRECT-T1DM (Decision-Support for Integrated, Real-Time Evaluation and Clinical Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus), is an electronic clinical decision support tool that promotes immediate point-of-care testing in general practice to confirm the suspicion of diabetes. This avoids laboratory testing, which has been documented internationally as a cause of diagnostic delay. In this investigation, we aimed to pilot and assess the feasibility and acceptability of our prototype to GP end users. We also explored the challenges of diagnosing type 1 diabetes in the Australian general practice context. In total, 4 GPs, a pediatric endocrinologist, and a PhD candidate were involved in conceptualizing the DIRECT-T1DM prototype, which was developed at the Department of General Practice and Primary Care at the University of Melbourne. Furthermore, 6 GPs were recruited via convenience sampling to evaluate the tool. The study involved 3 phases: a presimulation interview, simulated clinical scenarios, and a postsimulation interview. The interview guide was developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a guide. All phases of the study were video, audio, and screen recorded. Audio recordings were transcribed by the investigating team. Analysis was carried out using CFIR as the underlying framework. Major themes were identified among three domains and 7 constructs of the CFIR: (1) outer setting-time pressure, difficulty in diagnosing pediatric type 1 diabetes, and secondary care considerations influenced GPs' needs regarding DIRECT-T1DM; (2) inner setting-DIRECT-T1DM fits within existing workflows, it has a high relative priority due to its importance in patient safety, and GPs exhibited high tension for change; and (3) innovation-design recommendations included altering coloring to reflect urgency, font style and bolding, specific language, information and guidelines, and inclusion of patient information sheets. End-user acceptability of DIRECT-T1DM was high. This was largely due to its implications for patient safety and its "real-time" nature. DIRECT-T1DM may assist in appropriate management of children with new-onset diabetes, which is an uncommon event in general practice, through safety netting.

Reflection on the application of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to a national policy to improve inclusion of people with disabilities