ESTRO 2022 - Abstract Book

S879

Abstract book

ESTRO 2022

to determine favourable patient characteristics for each type of local treatment and to compare these treatments based on their costs and effects.

PO-1043 Factors affecting the implementation of technological and treatment innovations in radiotherapy

R. Swart 1 , L. Boersma 1 , R. Fijten 2 , S. Raj 3 , S. Thijssen 2 , C. Roumen 2 , M. Jacobs 4

1 Stichting Maastricht Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapy, Maastricht, The Netherlands; 2 Stichting Maastricht Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapy , Maastricht, The Netherlands; 3 Maastricht University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Science, Maastricht, The Netherlands; 4 Tilburg University, Tilburg School of Economics and Management, Tilburg, The Netherlands Purpose or Objective Previous research has shown that radiotherapy (RT)-treatment innovations are four times less likely to be timely implemented, in comparison to technological innovations 1 . This study aims to investigate which factors are related to this difference, to find clues to improve implementation-efficiency for treatment innovations. Materials and Methods First, a scoping literature review on success factors for treatment and technological innovations (see Table 1 for some examples) was performed. Second, the database of the original research 1 , consisting of 163 innovations (only 54% were successfully implemented), was analysed for differentiating success factors for treatment and technological innovations by means of descriptive statistics. Univariate comparisons of categorical data were performed using cross tables and Chi- square tests. Subsequently, semi-structured interviews on experienced facilitators and barriers were conducted with eight experts involved in the implementation of four selected innovations at a Dutch RT-centre.

Results The literature search yielded 276 unique studies, of which ultimately 19 articles (9 technological, 10 treatment innovations) were included in the study. Apart from the earlier found success factors 1 , four additional success factors were identified: patient engagement, patient safety, scalability and costs. Analyses of the database showed that treatment and technological innovations had many factors in common, such as complexity, clear roles for each member in every step of the implementation process and good understanding and awareness of the goals of the project and the process of implementation. Differentiating factors for technological innovations were sufficient resources and a positive organizational climate with a friendly and respectful approach to employees, whereas for treatment innovations feasibility & desirability, and a project leader who clearly promotes the benefits of the innovation to the project members, are key factors. The interviews with experts showed that patient safety, external forces and patient engagement play a part only in treatment innovations, whereas training and scalability were important for technological innovations. The expected workflow/workload as result of the innovation was mentioned in all innovations, this was expected to lead to a higher workload for treatment innovations and to improved efficiency and less workload in technological innovations. Conclusion Based on our results (Table 2), including patient engagement and patient safety is crucial before implementing treatment innovations, since our results indicate that the low success rate of treatment innovation implementations, is caused by these two determinants. The already higher success rate of technological innovations can probably be accelerated if the new technology is scalable and introduced by a solid training plan.

References