Key Points Question Did the delivery of services within a cancer system change during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic? Findings This population-based cohort study conducted in Ontario, Canada, found a total of 4 476 693 cancer care services during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with 5 644 105 services in the year prior, representing a reduction of 20.7% and suggesting a backlog of 1 167 412 cancer services during the first pandemic year. Limited change was observed in systemic treatments and emergency or urgent imaging examinations and surgical procedures, while major reductions were observed in cancer screening tests, biopsies, surgical treatments, and new consultations for systemic and radiation treatment. Meaning These findings provide evidence on the deficits in cancer care that occurred during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic that are likely to inform continued delivery of care, recovery, and future pandemic planning.

ObjectivesTo describe current patterns of practice of radiation oncology peer review within a provincial cancer system, identifying barriers and facilitators to its use with the ultimate aim of process improvement.DesignA survey of radiation oncology programmes at provincial cancer centres.SettingAll cancer centres within the province of Ontario, Canada (n=14). These are community-based outpatient facilities overseen by Cancer Care Ontario, the provincial cancer agency.ParticipantsA delegate from each radiation oncology programme filled out a single survey based on input from their multidisciplinary team.Outcome measuresRated importance of peer review; current utilisation; format of the peer-review process; organisation and timing; case attributes; outcomes of the peer-review process and perceived barriers and facilitators to expanding peer-review processes.Results14 (100%) centres responded. All rated the importance of peer review as at least 8/10 (10=extremely important). Detection of medical error and improvement of planning processes were the highest rated perceived benefits of peer review (each median 9/10). Six centres (43%) reviewed at least 50% of curative cases; four of these centres (29%) conducted peer review in more than 80% of cases treated with curative intent. Fewer than 20% of cases treated with palliative intent were reviewed in most centres. Five centres (36%) reported usually conducting peer review prior to the initiation of treatment. Five centres (36%) recorded the outcomes of peer review on the medical record. Thirteen centres (93%) planned to expand peer-review activities; a critical mass of radiation oncologists was the most important limiting factor (median 6/10).ConclusionsRadiation oncology peer-review practices can vary even within a cancer system with provincial oversight. The application of guidelines and standards for peer-review processes, and monitoring of implementation and outcomes, will require effective knowledge translation activities.

Purpose This study reports on the implementation of an electronic consent-to-treatment system (e-Consent) in a busy radiation medicine program and compares it with the previous paper-based method of documenting patient consent. Methods A password-protected, electronic, e-Consent application was designed in-house and installed on iPad devices to document patient consent for radiation therapy treatments. A feasibility study, followed by a program-wide deployment of e-Consent, was executed. The effectiveness and impact of e-Consent on workflow were determined by comparing the number of problems arising from the paper-based consenting method with those from the e-Consent process. Staff satisfaction and perceived impact of e-Consent on workflow were determined by a program-wide survey of e-Consent users. Results The e-Consent completion rate was 94.2% (5,600 of 5,943 forms) 1 year after implementation, indicating successful uptake at the program level. Although the paper-based method of documenting patient consent was associated with an error rate of 7% (24 of 343 forms), e-Consent was associated with an error rate of 0.32% (18 of 5,600 forms) 1 year after deployment. Results of a 10-item e-Consent user survey indicated improvement in staff workflow and high overall satisfaction with e-Consent. Conclusion e-Consent is more efficient than paper-based methods for documenting patient consent. Moreover, replacing paper-based consent methods with an electronic version facilitated an improved workflow and staff satisfaction. Efforts aimed at implementing e-Consent throughout the entire cancer program are currently underway.