Purpose: In 2020, Ontario Health Cancer Care (CCO) implemented quality based procedures funding for radiation therapy. All treatment plans and courses treated with radiation therapy were expected to have an RT Protocol assigned in their monthly submissions to CCO. CCO released the list of the protocols to Ontario cancer centres in March 2020 with submission expected in April 2020. In light of the pandemic, the deadline was extended to April 2021. Our centre has been submitting RT Protocols since April 2020. Methods: Like all centres in Ontario, we investigated the best way to incorporate and implement RT Protocols within our current processes. The first step involved reviewing the list of RT Protocols to understand the elements contained such as site types, intent, dose and fractionation ranges, exclusions and other criteria. The second step was comparing the list with our own departmental protocols and treatment regimens. Within our centre, this meant aligning the RT Protocols with site based care plans in the oncology management software (Mosaiq). Multi-disciplinary technical site groups were notified of careplans and fractionations not supported and adjustments were made as required. The third step entailed devising and implementing a process to populate RT Protocols for each patient, allowing for changes in RT Protocol, if required, as treatment progressed. An automated IQ Script process was chosen to limit the chances of error with manual entry or selection. RT Protocol would be verified at the time of planning to ensure that no changes occurred from careplan entry to plan approval. Corrections were made as needed. The RT Protocols were validated by manually verifying RT Protocols generated, ensuring the protocol matched treatment intent and dose fractionation. Our third party vendor was notified and able to extract RT Protocols information from Mosaiq. Results: Some of the initial challenges related to software limitations. In Mosaiq, there were some options available such as protocol and regimen sections, however, they did not meet our needs due to character limits and free text nature of entries. Furthermore, RT Protocol names were not as intuitive or explicit by their name, leading us to select an automated QCL Script process instead. RT Protocols are defined by site, which worked well for radical treatments. However, for palliative treatments this posed a problem. In our centre, palliative careplans are defined by the number of fractions. Patients with multiple protocols also posed a challenge as the system could only handle one protocol at a time for given course of treatment. Replans and rescans may warrant an RT Protocol change so reminders were added to verify and manually correct. Conclusions: Our centre established a stable and validated process to list and submit RT Protocols. We were the first and only centre to submit RT Protocols by the initial deadline. This is a fluid process as protocols are constantly being updated and new requests are being submitted. Most of the challenges listed were rectified through a manual process. The percentage of manual changes required decreased over time.