PURPOSE: The integration of palliative care into usual oncology care is a best practice, but implementation can be challenging. METHODS: We convened a virtual learning collaborative (VLC) of oncology practices with a focus on integrating palliative care. The entire program was virtual, with teams meeting via online Webinar and conference call and accessing content via an online portal. Because of the need to pause and retool after the first 5 months, the VLC evolved into 2 phases, with feedback after the first phase informing the second. We primarily evaluated the reaction of participants and project team members after the completion of the VLC using 2 quantitative surveys (after each phase) and semistructured interviews with participants. RESULTS: A total of 24 oncology practices entered the VLC. Evaluation after each of 2 phases was conducted. For the first evaluation, 67% of respondents agreed a quality improvement coach was helpful to complete the program; 61% agreed a palliative care expert was helpful. The most common reasons for withdrawal involved organizational and VLC factors. Organizational factors included: time constraints, personnel changes (turnover), loss of the champion, and lack of team engagement. Twenty-two active participants and 8 former participants completed the second survey. Of those, 79% agreed the experience with the VLC was valuable, and 74% agreed the virtual delivery mode was useful. We identified 3 themes to drive future improvements related to structure, engagement, and content. CONCLUSION: VLCs are a potential mechanism to disseminate information and facilitate learning in oncology. Further study of program characteristics that promote acceptance of VLCs are needed.
PURPOSE: The integration of palliative care into usual oncology care is a best practice, but implementation can be challenging. METHODS: We convened a virtual learning collaborative (VLC) of oncology practices with a focus on integrating palliative care. The entire program was virtual, with teams meeting via online Webinar and conference call and accessing content via an online portal. Because of the need to pause and retool after the first 5 months, the VLC evolved into 2 phases, with feedback after the first phase informing the second. We primarily evaluated the reaction of participants and project team members after the completion of the VLC using 2 quantitative surveys (after each phase) and semistructured interviews with participants. RESULTS: A total of 24 oncology practices entered the VLC. Evaluation after each of 2 phases was conducted. For the first evaluation, 67% of respondents agreed a quality improvement coach was helpful to complete the program; 61% agreed a palliative care expert was helpful. The most common reasons for withdrawal involved organizational and VLC factors. Organizational factors included: time constraints, personnel changes (turnover), loss of the champion, and lack of team engagement. Twenty-two active participants and 8 former participants completed the second survey. Of those, 79% agreed the experience with the VLC was valuable, and 74% agreed the virtual delivery mode was useful. We identified 3 themes to drive future improvements related to structure, engagement, and content. CONCLUSION:VLCs are a potential mechanism to disseminate information and facilitate learning in oncology. Further study of program characteristics that promote acceptance of VLCs are needed.
Authors: Jack Ellrodt; Theodore Pincus; Nancy A Shadick; Jacklyn Stratton; Leah Santacroce; Jeffrey N Katz; Josef Smolen; Daniel H Solomon Journal: J Clin Rheumatol Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 3.902