Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T14:20:13.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing and implementing a Radiotherapy Research Activity Assessment Tool (RAAT): a prospective feasibility study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2016

Simon Goldsworthy ,
Benjamin Roe ,
Stuart McGrail ,
Stephen McCormack  and
Julie Walther
Simon Goldsworthy*
Affiliation:
Beacon Cancer Centre, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, Somerset, UK
Benjamin Roe
Affiliation:
Beacon Cancer Centre, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, Somerset, UK
Stuart McGrail
Affiliation:
Beacon Cancer Centre, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, Somerset, UK
Stephen McCormack
Affiliation:
Beacon Cancer Centre, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, Somerset, UK
Julie Walther
Affiliation:
Beacon Cancer Centre, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, Somerset, UK
*
Correspondence to: Simon Goldsworthy, Beacon Cancer Centre, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, Somerset TA1 5DA, UK. Tel: 0773 232 7100. E-mail: simon.goldsworthy@tst.nhs.uk, simon.goldsworthy@googlemail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim

Cancer research in the National Health Service has increased by 10·5% in 3 years since the formation of the National Cancer Research networks in 2000. The initial enthusiasm from clinical staffs to embark on a project has to be balanced against the implications of resources, costs and other developments. There is no standardised method to assess the impact of research projects on clinical practice. The aim of this project was to develop and implement a Radiotherapy Research Activity Assessment Tool (RAAT) to assess the feasibility of newly proposed projects within clinical settings.

Methods and materials

A multi-step development method was used. The steps involved the principles of quality function deployment. The consecutive steps involved developing a user-friendly and replicable tool and would fit on one A4 page. The process involved multi-professionals and patients throughout the design process. The tool was preliminary tested on usability among eight stakeholders on a ten-point scale (1=poor; 10=very good). Percentage agreement was evaluated at 6 month post initial RAAT assessment scoring by the seven multi-disciplinary team (MDT) members.

Findings

The RAAT was developed in an e-form available in Microsoft Excel. The tool scored a mode of 6 for usability. Interrater reliability testing between the radiotherapy MDT resulted in 88% agreement. The RAAT seems to be feasible in clinical practice, and provide a framework to guide the decision-making process. The study calls for further testing of usability and review of long-term implications on all stakeholders.

Keywords

impact assessmentradiotherapy servicesresearch
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 223 - 231
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Sinha, G. United Kingdom becomes the cancer clinical trials recruitment capital of the world. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99 (6): 420–422.Google Scholar
2. NHS England. Everyone Counts; Planning for Patients 2014/15 to 2018/19. United Kingdom: Department of Health, 2013: 1–92.Google Scholar
3. NHS England. Research and Development Strategy 2013–2018 (DRAFT): Research is Everybody’s Business. United Kingdom: Department of Health, 2013.Google Scholar
4. NHS England. The NHS Business Plan for 2013/2014 to 2015/2016, Putting Patients First. United Kingdom: Department of Health, 2013.Google Scholar
5. Winkler, C, Duma, M N, Popp, W et al. Protection of quality and innovation in radiation oncology: the prospective multicenter trial QUIRO of DEGRO: evaluation of time, attendance of medical staff, and resources during radiotherapy with tomotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2014; 190 (10): 950–956.Google Scholar
6. Greenberg, D, Earle, C, Fang, C H, Eldar-Lissai, A, Neumann, P J. When is cancer care cost-effective? A systematic overview of cost-utility analyses in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102 (2): 82–88.Google Scholar
7. Jones, M L, Cifu, D X, Backus, D, Sisto, S A. Instilling a research culture in an applied clinical setting. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94 (1 suppl): S49–S54.Google Scholar
8. Hearn, J, Sullivan, R. The impact of the ‘Clinical Trials’ directive on the cost and conduct of non-commercial cancer trials in the UK. Eur J Cancer 2007; 43 (1): 8–13.Google Scholar
9. Bonilla, C, Pawlicki, T, Perry, L, Wesselink, B. Radiation oncology lean six sigma project selection based on patient and staff input into a modified quality function deployment. Int J Six Sigma Competitive Advantage 2008; 4 (3): 196–208.Google Scholar
10. NHS Institution for Innovation and Improvement. Quality service and improvement tools; Lean. http://www.institute.nhs.uk/quality_and_service_improvement_tools/quality_and_service_improvement_tools/lean.html. Accessed on 22nd May 2014.Google Scholar
11. Rich, N, Bateman, N, Esain, A, Massey, L, Samuel, D. Lean Evolutions. Cardiff: Cambridge University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
12. Wilford, B, Cutler, S, Williams, P. Planning your research study. In: Ramlaul A. (ed.). Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy Research, Skills and Strategies. Hertfordshire: Churchill Livingstone, 2010: 65–77.Google Scholar
13. Tilling, K, Sterne, J, Brookes, S, Peters, T. Features and designs of randomized controlled trials and non-randomised experimental designs. In: Bowling A., Ebrahim S. (eds). Handbook of Health Research Methods. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
14. McCluggage, B. A paperless NHS by 2018 is possible. Health Serv J 2013; 123 (6338): 18–19.Google Scholar
15. O’Dowd, A. MPs question government’s plan for a paperless NHS by 2018. BMJ 2013; 347: f5652.Google Scholar
16. De Vet, H C W, Terwee, C B, Mokkink, L B, Knol, D L. Measurement in Medicine. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
17. Vijayananthan, A, Nawawi, O. The importance of good clinical practice guidelines and its role in clinical trials. Biomed Imaging Interv J 2008; 4 (1): e5.Google Scholar
18. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York Publishing Services Ltd, 2009: 1–294.Google Scholar
19. Vanteddu, G, McAllister, C D. An integrated approach for prioritized process improvement. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2014; 27 (6): 493–504.Google Scholar
20. Munoz, D A, Nembhard, H B, Kraschnewski, J L. Quantifying complexity in translational research: an integrated approach. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2014; 27 (8): 760–776.Google Scholar
21. Kennedy, F, McDonnell, A, Gerrish, K, Howarth, A, Pollard, C, Redman, J. Evaluation of the impact of nurse consultant roles in the United Kingdom: a mixed method systematic literature review. J Adv Nurs 2012; 68 (4): 721–742.Google Scholar
22. Gerrish, K, McDonnell, A, Kennedy, F. Capturing Impact; A Practical Toolkit for Nurse Consultants. UK: Sheffield Hallam University, 2011: 1–88.Google Scholar
23. McHugh, M L. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012; 22 (3): 276–282.Google Scholar
24. Q-Pulse® . Integrating ERP with QMS Solutions for Cost-Effective Quality Management. QPM-196. Nottinghamshire, UK: Gael Products Ltd, 2012.Google Scholar