An Environmental Scan of Advanced Practice Radiation Therapy in the United States: A PESTEL Analysis

From novice to Expert: Reducing Breast Imaging rejection rates through physician mentorship in Advanced Practice Radiation therapy

Purpose

The study's goal was to evaluate the impact of a Radiation Oncologist (RO)-Radiation Therapist (RTT) mentorship on image approval rates for a breast population undergoing radiation therapy in a high-volume practice. The mentorship was undertaken within a large health system in partial fulfillment of the Expert Practice Module for a Masters (MSc) in Advanced Practice Radiotherapy and Oncology.

Methods

Images were retrieved from the MOSAIQ EMR on breast diagnostic code. 1,295 images/115 patients were reviewed pre-mentorship (October 2019-March 2020) and compared with 1,047 images/91patients during/post-mentorship (April 2020-September 2020). The Anderson-Gill (AG) model was used to estimate the hazard ratio for image rejection. Rejected images were classified by reason and compared using Fisher's exact test. Concordance data (RO/RTT image rejection) were collected during Phase Three of the mentorship.

Results

Of 115 patients assessed pre-mentorship, 16 (14 %) had at least 1 image rejected at any session. Of 91 patients assessed post-mentorship, 8 (9 %) had at least 1 image rejected. Likelihood of image rejection decreased by 54 %, with a hazard ratio of 0.46 [95 % CI: 0.24, 0.88]; p = 0.0195. Reasons for image rejection differed pre- and post-mentorship. Poor imaging technique accounted for rejection of 9 of 24 images (37.5 %) before compared to 0 of 11 images (0 %) post-mentorship. Other reasons for image rejection: depth at isocenter (25 % pre-mentorship; 18 % post-mentorship), supraclavicular medial border position (12.5 % vs. 9.09 %), isocenter location (12.5 % vs. 0 %), arm position (4.17 % vs. 54.55 %); hip alignment (8.33 % vs. 18.18 %). Concordance rate was 100 %.

Conclusions

The mentorship proved successful in elevating the RTT's skills and image approval rates, while contributing to improvements in departmental imaging best practices.

RTT advanced practice and how it can change the future of radiotherapy

The radiation therapy (RT) landscape is continuously evolving, necessitating adaptation in roles and responsibilities of radiation therapists (RTTs). Advanced Practice Radiation Therapists (APRTs) have taken on a proactive role in expanding services and assuming responsibilities within multi-professional teams. A European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) brought geographically diverse and experienced RTTs together, to discuss how advanced practice (AP) in the RTT profession should be future-proofed and create a global platform for collaboration. Challenges in achieving consensus and standardisation of APRT was identified across jurisdictions, emphasising the importance of international collaboration. Whilst highlighting the pivotal role of APRTs in driving innovation, improving patient care, and navigating the complexities of modern RT practice, this position paper presents outcomes and recommendations from the workshop. Discussions highlighted the need for standardised role definitions, education frameworks, regulatory support, and career development pathways to enable the advancement of APRT effectively. Increasing networks and collaboration is recommended to ensure APRTs can shape the future of RT.

Advanced practice in radiotherapy across Europe: stakeholders' perceptions of implementation and evolution

INTRODUCTION

Adapting radiotherapy services with workforce innovation using skills-mix or task-shifting optimises resources, supporting current and future demands. Advanced practitioners (APs) work at a different level of practice (beyond initial registration) across four pillars: clinical practice, leadership and management, education, and research. There is limited cross-country research on the advanced therapeutic radiographers/radiation therapists (TR/RTTs), particularly in Europe. This study aimed to investigate European radiotherapy stakeholders' perceptions regarding current and future advanced practice (AP).

METHODS

From June to September 2022, one-to-one online semi-structured interviews were conducted in English, and audio and video were recorded. Full verbatim audio files were independently transcribed and checked by interviewer and interviewees. Braun and Clarke's seven steps guided the thematic analysis (using NVivo).

RESULTS

Thirty-three interviewees working or studying in 16 European countries represented practitioners (n=14), managers (n=6), educators (n=4), professional bodies (n=4), students (n=3), and regulators (n=2). Four overarching themes emerged: "AP drivers and outcomes", "AP challenges vs enablers", "Current vs future AP", "Becoming and being advanced practitioner". Participants identified research as the neglected AP pillar due to a lack of protected time, limited staff skills, no research culture, no funding, workload, and clinical priorities. Interviewees highlighted the importance of consistency in job titles, harmonisation of education models and curricula, definition of AP requirements, and support for all AP pillars through job plans and workforce planning.

CONCLUSION

Neither the profession nor education of TR/RTTs are harmonised across Europe, which is highly reflected in advanced-level practice. Advanced TR/RTTs should work across all pillars, including research, and these should be embedded in master's programmes, including leadership.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study highlights a policy gap in the education and practice of APs in radiotherapy.

'Snapshot in time': a cross-sectional study exploring stakeholder experiences with environmental scans in health services delivery research

OBJECTIVE

To describe stakeholder characteristics and perspectives about experiences, challenges and information needs related to the use of environmental scans (ESs).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A web-based survey platform was used to disseminate an online survey to stakeholders who had experience with conducting ESs in a health services delivery context (eg, researchers, policy makers, practitioners). Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. The survey was disseminated internationally, was available in English and French, and remained open for 6 weeks (15 October to 30 November 2022).

ANALYSIS

Descriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics and experiences of stakeholders. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the open-text questions.

RESULTS

Of 47 participants who responded to the survey, 94% were from Canada, 4% from the USA and 2% from Australia. Respondents represented academic institutions (57%), health agency/government (32%) and non-government organisations or agencies (11%). Three themes were identified: (a) having a sense of value and utility; (b) experiencing uncertainty and confusion; and (c) seeking guidance. The data suggest stakeholders found value and utility in ESs and conducted them for varied purposes including to: (a) enhance knowledge, understanding and learning about the current landscape or state of various features of health services delivery (eg, programmes, practices, policies, services, best practices); (b) expose needs, service barriers, challenges, gaps, threats, opportunities; (c) help guide action for planning, policy and programme development; and (d) inform recommendations and decision-making. Stakeholders also experienced conceptual, methodological and practical barriers when conducting ESs, and expressed a need for methodological guidance delivered through published guidelines, checklists and other means.

CONCLUSION

ESs have value and utility for addressing health services delivery concerns, but conceptual and methodological challenges exist. Further research is needed to help advance the ES as a distinct design that provides a systematic approach to planning and conducting ESs.