No abstract

This initiative demonstrates that a change management framework can be useful for planning and achieving substantial increases in jurisdictional peer review activities.

Background Physical inactivity is associated with increased health risks. Primary care providers (PCPs) are well positioned to support increased physical activity (PA) levels through screening and provision of PA prescriptions. However, PCP counseling on PA is not common. Objective This study aimed to assess the feasibility of implementing an electronic health (eHealth) tool to support PA counseling by PCPs and estimate intervention effectiveness on patients’ PA levels. Methods A pragmatic pilot study was conducted using a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design. The study was conducted at a single primary care clinic, with 4 pre-existing PCP teams. Adult patients who had a periodic health review (PHR) scheduled during the study period were invited to participate. The eHealth tool involved an electronic survey sent to participants before their PHR via an email or a tablet; data were used to automatically produce tailored resources and a PA prescription in the electronic medical record of participants in the intervention arm. Participants assigned to the control arm received usual care from their PCP. Feasibility was assessed by the proportion of completed surveys and patient-reported acceptability and fidelity measures. The primary effectiveness outcome was patient-reported PA at 4 months post-PHR, measured as metabolic equivalent of task (MET) minutes per week. Secondary outcomes assessed determinants of PA, including self-efficacy and intention to change based on the Health Action Process Approach behavior change theory. Results A total of 1028 patients receiving care from 34 PCPs were invited to participate and 530 (51.55%) consented (intervention [n=296] and control [n=234]). Of the participants who completed a process evaluation, almost half (88/178, 49.4%) stated they received a PA prescription, with only 42 receiving the full intervention including tailored resources from their PCP. A cluster-level linear regression analysis yielded a non–statistically significant positive difference in MET-minutes reported per week at follow-up between intervention and control conditions (mean difference 1027; 95% CI −155 to 2209; P=.09). No statistically significant differences were observed for secondary outcomes. Conclusions Our results suggest that it is feasible to build an eHealth tool that screens and provides tailored resources for PA in a primary care setting but suboptimal intervention fidelity suggests greater work must be done to address PCP barriers to resource distribution. Participant responses to the primary effectiveness outcome (MET-minutes) were highly variable, reflecting a need for more robust measures of PA in future trials to address limitations in patient-reported data. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03181295; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03181295

No abstract

238 Background: Peer review (PR) in radiation oncology (RO) has been endorsed as an indicator of treatment quality in North America and internationally. The direct benefits of PR include quality assurance (QA) on individual treatment plans. The indirect benefits for radiation oncology departments or programs (ROPs) have been postulated but not systematically evaluated. We used a rigorous and comprehensive qualitative approach to explore the indirect benefits of PR across a jurisdiction of cancer care, and to identify factors that facilitate PR, barriers to implementation, and strategies for expansion of PR across centers. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were held with all RO heads and Radiation therapy Managers (or delegate) in all 14 Radiation Oncology Programs (ROPs) in Ontario, Canada. The interview questions were developed using a Knowledge Translation Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), guided by the results of a previous survey of Ontario cancer centers and by expert consensus. Interviews were audiotaped and abstracted for relevant themes by two independent analysts. Results: All interviewees endorsed numerous direct and indirect benefits of PR, and identified multiple facilitators and barriers to the implementation of PR. Thematic saturation was achieved. The structure-process-outcome model was used to categorize the results. Key findings included the identification of 34 independent benefits (structure n = 4, process n = 17, outcome n = 13), 40 key barriers (structure n = 9, process n = 26, outcome n = 5), and 22 facilitators (structure n = 4, process n = 15, outcome n = 3). Beyond QA, commonly endorsed benefits included enhanced knowledge sharing, efficiency, standardization, and education. Multiple potential strategies for the expansion of PR activities were revealed. Conclusions: The qualitative exploration of Ontario ROPs acknowledges that multiple barriers and facilitators to PR exist while clearly establishing the indirect benefit of PR on ROPs. Understanding reported barriers and facilitators and exploration of suggested strategies will inform continued implementation and expansion of PR activities, and seem generalizable to other jurisdictions.