Background:Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) have emerged as a crucial tool in oncology, facilitating real-time symptom monitoring, enhancing patient-centred care, and supporting data-driven clinical decision-making. In New South Wales (NSW), Australia, the Cancer Institute New South Wales led the state-wide implementation of an electronic patient reported measures (ePRM) system to integrate ePROMs into routine cancer care. Methods:We describe the ePRM system build and implementation through the EPIS (Explore, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment) implementation science framework. The ePRM system was iteratively developed to support real-time symptom monitoring, automated alerts, and integration with oncology information systems (ARIA, MOSAIQ). A phased roll-out strategy included system integration, clinician training, stakeholder engagement, and change management coaching. Data collection included system utilisation metrics (e.g. number of surveys completed), implementation metrics (activation timelines), and clinician and patient feedback. Descriptive statistics summarised adoption patterns, while qualitative analysis identified key implementation barriers and enablers. A statewide governance structure guided development, ensuring alignment with clinical workflows and sustainability across diverse cancer services in NSW. Findings:From 09 September 2019 to 23 July 2025, the ePRM system has been technically implemented in 55 sites (and clinically implemented in 43/55) in NSW, collecting over 30,000 PROM surveys. 29 (67%) of 43 participating services utilise three validated measures: the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Distress Thermometer (DT), and Problem Checklist. Implementation enablers included strong leadership support, clinician engagement, and system flexibility to accommodate local workflows. Barriers included variable IT infrastructure, clinician workload concerns, and limited allied health resources. Early feedback suggests that both patients and clinicians recognise the value of ePROMs in improving symptom management and care coordination. Interpretation:The NSW ePRM system demonstrates the feasibility of integrating ePROMs into routine oncology care at scale. Key lessons include the importance of co-design and adaptive implementation strategies. Future directions include expanding the use of ePROMs data for advanced analytics and policy insights, improving interoperability with electronic medical records, and refining clinician workflows to optimise response to PROM breaches. The findings offer insights for other healthcare systems seeking to implement and sustain ePROMs in routine practice. Funding:The Cancer Institute New South Wales funded the build of the electronic Patient Reported Measures System and integration costs of the platform. No other external funds from industry partners were obtained.

Electronically administered patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are effective digital health tools for informing clinicians about cancer patients’ symptoms and facilitating timely patient-centred care. This paper describes the delivery of healthcare activities supported by the PROMPT-Care model, including ePROMs generated clinical alerts, cancer care team (CCT) response to alerts, and patients’ perceptions of the CCT response and ePROMs system. This mixed-methods study includes cancer patients from four cancer therapy centres in New South Wales, Australia. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected regarding clinical alert activity, CCT response, and patient perceptions of the CCT responses and ePROMs system. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Of the 328 participants whose care was informed by the digital health tool, 70.8% (n = 233) generated at least one alert during the trial period, with 877 alerts generated in total. Although 43.7% (n = 383) were actioned by the CCT, at least 80% of participants found follow-up CCT phone calls beneficial, with multiple benefits confirmed in interviews. The cancer care delivery arm of the PROMPT-Care trial involving clinical alerts to the CCT was positively perceived by most participants, resulting in a diverse range of benefits. However, further work is required, informed by implementation science, to improve the percentage of actioned clinical alerts.

Background To realize the broader benefits of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in routine care, we used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to inform the translation of a clinically effective ePROM system (hereafter referred to as the PRM system) into practice. The study aimed to evaluate the processes and success of implementing the PRM system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. Method A controlled before-and-after mixed-methods study was undertaken. Data sources included a self-report questionnaire and interviews with healthcare providers, electronic health record data for PRMs patients and historical controls, and field notes. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression modelling, negative binomial models, generalized estimating equations and repeated measures ANOVA were used to analyze quantitative data. Qualitative data was thematically analyzed. Results A total of 48/79 eligible people diagnosed with lung cancer completed 90 assessments during the 5-month implementation period (RE-AIM reach ). Every assessment breached the pre-defined threshold and care coordinators reviewed and actioned 95.6% of breaches, resulting in 146 referrals to allied health services, most frequently for social work (25.3%), dietetics (18.5%), physiotherapy (18.5%) and occupational therapy (17.1%). PRMs patients had significantly fewer visits to the cancer assessment unit for problematic symptoms (M = 0.23 vs. M = 0.43; p = 0.035), and were significantly more likely to be offered referrals (71% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001) than historical controls (RE-AIM effect ). The levels of ‘organizational readiness for implementing change’ (ORIC) did not show much differences between baseline and follow-up, though this was already high at baseline; but significantly more staff reported improved confidence when asking patients to complete assessments (64.7% at baseline vs. 88.2% at follow-up, p = 0.0046), and when describing the assessment tool to patients (64.7% at baseline vs. 76.47% at follow-up, p = 0.0018) (RE-AIM adoption ). A total of 78 staff received PRM system training, and 95.6% of the PRM system alerts were actioned (RE-AIM implementation ); and all lung cancer care coordinators were engaged with the PRM system beyond the end of the study period (RE-AIM maintenance ). Conclusion This study demonstrates the potential of the PRM system in enhancing the routine care of lung cancer patients, through leveraging the capabilities of automated web-based care options. Plain English summary Research has shown the clear benefits of using electronically collected patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) for cancer patients and health services. However, we need to better understand how to implement ePROMs as part of routine care. This study evaluated the processes and outcomes of implementing an ePROMs system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. Key findings included: (a) a majority of eligible patients completed the scheduled assessments; (b) patient concerns were identified in every assessment, and care coordinators reviewed and actioned almost all of these, including making significantly more referrals to allied health services; (c) patients completing assessments regularly were less likely to present to the cancer assessment unit with problematic symptoms, suggesting that ePROMs identified patient concerns early and this led to a timely response to concerns; (d) staff training and engagement was high, and staff reporting increased confidence when asking patients to complete assessments and when describing the assessment tool to patients at the end of the implementation period. This study shows that implementing ePROMs in routine care is feasible and can lead to improvements in patient care.

Objectives: Online resources can support patient self-management practices, but are not systematically used in routine clinical practice. We evaluated cancer patients' satisfaction with, and use of, tailored online resources. Methods: Patients completed monthly validated electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) of distress, unmet needs and symptoms. Patients with ePROM scores above pre-determined thresholds received an email directing them to relevant online self-management resources. Perceptions and experiences with these resources were evaluated via an online survey 3, 6 and 9 months after their initial monthly ePRO; and a subset of patients was also interviewed. Webpage use was monitored through Google Analytics and ClickMeter. Results: Overall, 221 patients completed evaluation surveys and 31 completed interviews. Patients spent 0-10 min on average accessing resources, with 93% indicating they would reuse them. The most viewed page was physical wellbeing (n = 680); exercise and nutrition resources were most popular; and 69% of patients were satisfied with information content, reporting resources were easy to understand and navigate. Conclusions: Online resources are perceived as acceptable and useful. Design and delivery recommendations can improve their support of self-management. Practice implications: Incorporating automated online self-management resources into routine clinical workflows is a viable model to support routine follow up care.

By its very nature, radiation oncology is a complex, multi-profession dynamic modality of cancer treatment. There are multiple steps with many handovers of work and many opportunities for patient safety to be compromised. Patient safety events can manifest as either actual incidents or near miss/close call events. Reporting and learning from these events is key to quality improvement and patient safety. In this paper, we aim to provide an overview of radiation oncology incident reporting and learning systems. We review the importance of the use of a standardized taxonomy and classification that is specific to radiation oncology workflow, the international systems in current use and the current reporting requirements in Australia and New Zealand. Equally important is the culture that exists alongside the incident learning system. A just culture, where support for reporting exists and there is an adaptive responsive environment to learn and improve patient safety. The incident learning and patient safety system requires constant effort to make it a success. We describe potential measures of safety culture and of relative patient safety and recommend their routine use. We offer this review to stimulate the effort towards a binational voluntary incident learning system, a key pillar for the improvement in patient safety in radiation oncology.

BackgroundDespite the acceptability and efficacy of e–patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems, implementation in routine clinical care remains challenging. ObjectiveThis pragmatic trial implemented the PROMPT-Care (Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care) web-based system into existing clinical workflows and evaluated its effectiveness among a diverse population of patients with cancer. MethodsAdult patients with solid tumors receiving active treatment or follow-up care in four cancer centers were enrolled. The PROMPT-Care intervention supported patient management through (1) monthly off-site electronic PRO physical symptom and psychosocial well-being assessments, (2) automated electronic clinical alerts notifying the care team of unresolved clinical issues following two consecutive assessments, and (3) tailored online patient self-management resources. Propensity score matching was used to match controls with intervention patients in a 4:1 ratio for patient age, sex, and treatment status. The primary outcome was a reduction in emergency department presentations. Secondary outcomes were time spent on chemotherapy and the number of allied health service referrals. ResultsFrom April 2016 to October 2018, 328 patients from four public hospitals received the intervention. Matched controls (n=1312) comprised the general population of patients with cancer, seen at the participating hospitals during the study period. Emergency department visits were significantly reduced by 33% (P=.02) among patients receiving the intervention compared with patients in the matched controls. No significant associations were found in allied health referrals or time to end of chemotherapy. At baseline, the most common patient reported outcomes (above-threshold) were fatigue (39%), tiredness (38.4%), worry (32.9%), general wellbeing (32.9%), and sleep (24.1%), aligning with the most frequently accessed self-management domain pages of physical well-being (36%) and emotional well-being (23%). The majority of clinical feedback reports were reviewed by nursing staff (729/893, 82%), largely in response to the automated clinical alerts (n=877). ConclusionsAlgorithm-supported web-based systems utilizing patient reported outcomes in clinical practice reduced emergency department presentations among a diverse population of patients with cancer. This study also highlighted the importance of (1) automated triggers for reviewing above-threshold results in patient reports, rather than passive manual review of patient records; (2) the instrumental role nurses play in managing alerts; and (3) providing patients with resources to support guided self-management, where appropriate. Together, these factors will inform the integration of web-based PRO systems into future models of routine cancer care. Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000615482; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370633 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.1186/s12885-018-4729-3

Introduction: Patient-reported Outcomes for Personalized Treatment and Care (PROMPT-Care) is the first eHealth system in Australia that is fully electronically integrated into hospital oncology information systems, enabling real-time, routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to support and enable cancer patients to achieve and maintain improved health, well-being, and cancer outcomes. Five previously published papers detail the impetus for developing this eHealth system, its development, and testing of its acceptability and feasibility, the development of algorithms to standardize the cancer care pathways which underpin patient care, and the protocol for evaluating the efficacy of PROMPT-Care. Methods: This manuscript provides "how-to" guidance to inform future system development, focusing on selecting relevant PROs and measuring them in cancer patients, score interpretation, and determining recommended care in response to scores which are above the predetermined threshold. Discussion: Electronic PRO systems are increasingly used in cancer clinical care settings, with the potential to support timely patient-centered care when implemented appropriately. Key Points: PRO selection should consider patient response burden, and prioritizing PROs that are amenable to clinical intervention. Having clear, evidence-based, care pathways, and actionable recommendations in response to above-threshold PRO scores facilitate PRO integration into the clinical workflow. Centers should determine thresholds for clinical action for each PRO which provide an acceptable balance between false positives and false negatives; and develop care pathway recommendations which consider the availability of local services and resources, are feasible in the clinical setting, clear, concise, manageable, based on evidence-based guidelines, and adaptable to local environments.

6510 Background: The significant impact of routine assessment and clinical utilization of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) on patient and survival outcomes and reduced emergency department (ED) presentations has been demonstrated in specific patient populations (e.g. advanced cancer). This controlled trial evaluated the impact of an eHealth system, PROMPT-Care, on ED presentations in a diverse population of cancer patients from four oncology treatments centers. Methods: All adult patients receiving cancer care (including adjuvant therapy and follow-up) were eligible, excepting those with a diagnosis of a hematological malignancy, insufficient English literacy or no internet access outside of the clinic. Intervention (PROMPT-Care) patients completed monthly online assessments comprising 61 items of distress, common symptoms and unmet needs, with PRO results electronically transferred into the electronic medical record (EMR). In “real-time”, the care team accessed patients’ PRO summary reports to guide their care, an email alert notified nurses of ongoing unresolved issues between visits, and patients received links to support self-management. Control group patients (n = 2,288) comprised the general cancer patient population receiving usual care at the participating cancer therapy centers. Multivariable negative binomial regression was used to compare between-group differences. Results: From April 2016 to March 2018, 345 eligible patients (mean age 62, 58% female, 27% stage IV) participated and were sent at least four assessments within the first six months on trial. On average, control patients had 30 ED presentations and PROMPT-Care patients had 21 ED presentations per 10,000 patient days. After adjusting for age, sex and stage of disease, PROMPT-Care patients had 26% (95% CI 0.2%, 57%) fewer ED presentations compared to the control group (p = 0.0483). Conclusions: The PROMPT-Care intervention resulted in significantly fewer ED presentations in a broad population of cancer patients, including those currently undergoing cancer treatment or are in follow-up, and patients with a wide range of tumor types. The results support its utility as an improved model for ongoing supportive care for a diverse population, with potential healthcare cost savings. Clinical trial information: ACTRN12616000615482.

PURPOSE:High-quality symptom management and supportive care are essential components of comprehensive cancer care. We aimed to describe the development of an evidence-based automated decisional algorithm for patients with cancer that had specific, actionable, clinical, evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care, communication, and management.METHODS:We reviewed existing literature and clinical practice guidelines to identify priority domains of patient care and potential clinical recommendations. Two multidisciplinary clinical advisory groups used a two-stage consensus decision-making approach to determine domains of care and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and subsequently developed automated algorithms with clear clinical recommendations amendable to intervention in clinical settings.RESULTS:Algorithms were developed to inform management of patient symptoms, distress, and unmet needs. Three PRO measures were chosen: Distress Thermometer and problem checklist, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, and the Supportive Care Needs Survey-Screening Tool 9. PRO items were mapped to five domains of patient well-being: physical, emotional, practical, social and family, and maintenance of well-being. A total of 15 actionable clinical recommendations tailored to specific issues of concern were established.CONCLUSION:Using automated algorithms and clinical recommendations provides a platform for streamlining and systematizing the use of PROs to inform risk-stratified guideline-informed care. The series of algorithms, which set out systematized care pathways for the clinical care of patients with cancer, can be used to potentially inform patient-centered care.

BACKGROUND:Routine assessment and clinical utilisation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures can lead to improved patient outcomes. The PROMPT-Care eHealth system facilitates PRO data capture from cancer patients, data linkage and retrieval to support clinical decisions, patient self-management, and shared care. Pilot testing demonstrated acceptability and feasibility of PROMPT-Care Version 1.0. This study aims to implement PROMPT-Care Version 2.0 and determine its efficacy in reducing emergency department (ED) presentations, and improving chemotherapy delivery and health service referrals, compared to usual care. METHODS:Groups eligible to participate in the intervention arm of this controlled trial are patients receiving cancer care (including follow-up). PROMPT-Care patients will complete monthly assessments (distress, symptoms, unmet needs) until voluntary withdrawal or death. In Version 1.0, the care team accessed patients' clinical feedback reports in 'real time' to guide their care, and patients received links to support their self-management, tailored to their PRO responses. Version 2.0 was extended to include: i) an additional alert system notifying the care team of ongoing unresolved clinical issues, ii) patient self-management resources, and iii) an auto-populated Treatment Summary and Survivorship Care Plan (SCP). The control population will be patients extracted from hospital databases of the general cancer patient population who were seen at the participating cancer therapy centres during the study period, with a ratio of 1:4 of intervention to control patients. A minimum sample size of 1760 (352 intervention and 1408 control) patients will detect a 14% reduction in the number of ED presentations (primary outcome) in the PROMPT-Care group compared with the control group. Intervention patients will provide feedback on system usability and value of the self-management materials; oncology staff will provide feedback on usefulness of PROMPT-Care reports, response to clinical alerts, impact on routine care, and usefulness of the SCPs; and GPs will provide feedback on the usefulness of the SCPs and attitudes towards shared-care models of survivorship care planning. DISCUSSION:This study will inform the PROMPT-Care system's impact on healthcare utilisation and utility as an alternative model for ongoing supportive care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12616000615482 ) on 12th May 2016 ( www.anzctr.org.au ).

This editorial provides an insight into learning and prevention of error through near miss event reporting.

Background Despite accumulating evidence indicating that collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and transferring results to the treating health professional in real time has the potential to improve patient well-being and cancer outcomes, this practice is not widespread. Objective The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of PROMPT-Care (Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care), a newly developed electronic health (eHealth) system that facilitates PRO data capture from cancer patients, data linkage and retrieval to support clinical decisions and patient self-management, and data retrieval to support ongoing evaluation and innovative research. Methods We developed an eHealth system in consultation with content-specific expert advisory groups and tested it with patients receiving treatment or follow-up care in two hospitals in New South Wales, Australia, over a 3-month period. Participants were recruited in clinic and completed self-report Web-based assessments either just before their upcoming clinical consultation or every 4 weeks if in follow-up care. A mixed methods approach was used to evaluate feasibility and acceptability of PROMPT-Care; data collected throughout the study informed the accuracy and completeness of data transfer procedures, and extent of missing data was determined from participants’ assessments. Patients participated in cognitive interviews while completing their first assessment and completed evaluation surveys and interviews at study-end to assess system acceptability and usefulness of patient self-management resources, and oncology staff were interviewed at study-end to determine the acceptability and perceived usefulness of real-time PRO reporting. Results A total of 42 patients consented to the study; 7 patients were withdrawn before starting the intervention primarily because of changes in eligibility. Overall, 35 patients (13 on treatment and 22 in follow-up) completed 67 assessments during the study period. Mean completeness of patient-reported data was 93%, with 100% accuracy of data transfer. Ten patients completed cognitive interviews, 28 completed evaluation surveys, and 14 completed evaluation interviews at study-end. PROMPT-Care patient acceptability was high—100% (28/28) reported the time to complete the Web-based assessments (average 15 min) as about right, most willing to answer more questions (79%, 22/28 yes), 96% (27/28) found the Web-based assessment easier or same as completing a paper copy, and they valued the self-management resources . Oncology staff (n=5) also reported high acceptability and potential feasibility of the system. Conclusions Patients and oncology staff found the PROMPT-Care system to be highly acceptable, and the results suggest that it would be feasible to implement it into an oncology setting. Suggested modifications to the patient assessment survey, clinician access to the reports, and system requirements will be made as part of the next stage of large-scale testing and future implementation of the system as part of routine care. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN1261500135294; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=369299&isReview=true (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6lzylG5A0).

IntroductionIn 2001, the Radiation Therapy Advisory Panel(RTAP) of the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (ASMIRT) (formerly known as Australian Institute of Radiography) published a model for radiation therapist staffing in Australian radiation oncology departments. Between 2012-2013, the model was reviewed to ensure it reflected current radiation therapy practice, technology, and to facilitate forward planning of the radiation therapy workforce.MethodTwenty-four sites from all states participated and provided data on megavoltage simulation, planning and treatment delivery. For simulation and planning activity, the length of time to complete was collected against relevant Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items. For treatment delivery, time to complete activities was collected against a common set of activities. Modelling assumptions are clearly identified in the methodology.ResultsA new model was developed retaining the essential model parameter of full-time equivalent (FTE) radiation therapists (RTs) per linear accelerator operating hour as in the 2001 model but based on contemporary practice and data. The model also includes significant refinements that improve the model's overall utility and flexibility for both workforce planning purposes and for individual services to use the model according to their own organisational needs and service delivery profiles.ConclusionThe ASMIRT believes that the 2014 RT staffing model provides the utility and flexibility for radiation oncology services to best plan RT staffing establishments according to their needs and reflecting the diversity between services and within the sector. It should also provide a robust and valid basis for governments and service planners to use as a guide in workforce planning into the future.

Background Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been used widely to screen for depression, anxiety, and symptoms in cancer patients. Computer-based applications that collect patients’ responses and transfer them to the treating health professional in real time have the potential to improve patient well-being and cancer outcomes. Objective This study will test the feasibility and acceptability of a newly developed eHealth system which facilitates PRO data capture from cancer patients, data linkage and retrieval to support clinical decisions and patient self-management, and data retrieval to support ongoing evaluation and innovative research. Methods The eHealth system is being developed in consultation with 3 overarching content-specific expert advisory groups convened for this project: the clinical advisory group, technical advisory group, and evaluation advisory group. The following work has already been completed during this phase of the study: the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care (PROMPT-Care) eHealth system was developed, patient-reported outcomes were selected (distress, symptoms, unmet needs), algorithms to inform intervention thresholds for clinical and self-management were determined, clinician PRO feedback summary and longitudinal reports were designed, and patient self-management resources were collated. PROsaiq, a custom information technology system, will transfer PRO data in real time into the hospital-based oncology information system to support clinical decision making. The PROMPT-Care system feasibility and acceptability will be assessed through patients completing PROMPT-Care assessments, participating in face-to-face cognitive interviews, and completing evaluation surveys and telephone interviews and oncology staff participating in telephone interviews. Results Over the course of 3 months, the system will be pilot-tested with up to 50 patients receiving treatment or follow-up care and 6 oncology staff at 2 hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Data will be collected to determine the accuracy and completeness of data transfer procedures, extent of missing data from participants’ assessments, acceptability of the eHealth system and usefulness of the self-management resources (via patient evaluation surveys and interviews), and acceptability and perceived usefulness of real-time PRO reporting (via oncology staff interviews) at the completion of the pilot phase. Conclusions This research investigates implementation of evidence into real world clinical practice through development of an efficient and user-friendly eHealth system. This study of feasibility and acceptability of the newly developed eHealth system will inform the next stage of larger scale testing and future implementation of the system as part of routine care. ClinicalTrial Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN1261500135294; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=369299&isReview=true (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6lzylG5A0)