A taskforce for national improvement of innovation implementation in radiotherapy

Background and purpose: Previous research among Dutch radiotherapy centres (RTCs) showed that 69% of innovations was simultaneously implemented in 7/19 centres, with a success rate of 51%. However, no structure to share lessons learned about the implementation process existed. Therefore, a national Taskforce Implementation (TTI) was raised to stimulate efficient implementation of innovations. The aim of the current study was to develop and pilot-evaluate a website for facilitating mutual learning on implementation issues. Material and methods: First, we made an inventory in all Dutch RTCs on their 10 most valuable innovations between 2019 and 2022. In-depth interviews, structured according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, were performed on the four most mentioned topics. A website was built, and pilot evaluated 1 year after the launch, using a qualitative survey amongst the TTI members. Results: In 13/18 centres, 19 interviews were conducted on 1) automation, 2) patient participation, 3) adaptive radiotherapy 4) surface guided radiotherapy and tracking. Most innovations (13/16) were implemented with a delay, with many comparable challenges: e.g. shortage of personnel (7/16) and prioritization of projects (9/16). The website allows users to upload and search for projects, including implementation experiences. After 1 year, 14 projects were uploaded. The qualitative evaluation was largely positive with room for improvement, i.e.75 % would recommend the website to others. Conclusion: This study showed that RTCs experience comparable challenges when implementing innovations, thereby underlining the need for a platform to share implementation-lessons learned. The first concept of this platform was evaluated positively

A systematic review of comorbidities and outcomes of adult patients with pleural infection

BACKGROUND: Pleural infection remains an important cause of mortality. This study aimed to investigate worldwide patterns of pre-existing comorbidities and clinical outcomes of patients with pleural infection. METHODS: Studies reporting on adults with pleural infection between 2000 and 2017 were identified from a search of Embase and Medline. Papers reporting exclusively on tuberculous, fungal or post pneumonectomy infection were excluded. Two reviewers assessed 20 980 records for eligibility. RESULTS: 211 studies met the inclusion criteria. 134 papers (227 898 patients, mean age 52.8 years) reported comorbidity and/or outcome data. The majority of studies were retrospective observational cohorts (n=104, 78%) and the most common region of reporting was East Asia (n=33, 24%) followed by North America (n=27, 20%).85 papers (50 756 patients) reported comorbidity. The median percentage prevalence of any comorbidity was 72% (IQR 58-83%), with respiratory illness (20%, 16-32%) and cardiac illness (19%, 15-27%) most commonly reported. 125 papers (192 298 patients) reported outcome data. The median length of stay was 19 days (IQR 13-27) and median in-hospital or 30-day mortality was 4% (IQR 1-11%).In regions with high-income economies (n=100, 74%) patients were older (mean 56.5 versus 42.5 years, p<0.0001), but there were no significant differences in prevalence of pre-existing comorbidity nor in length of hospital stay or mortality. CONCLUSION: Patients with pleural infection have high levels of comorbidity and long hospital stays. Most reported data are from high-income economy settings. Data from lower-income regions is needed to better understand regional trends and enable optimal resource provision going forward

The barriers and facilitators of radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare: A systematic review

Purpose: This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of radical innovations in secondary healthcare. Design/methodology/approach: A systematic review was conducted and presented in accordance with a PRISMA flowchart. The databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched for original publications in English between the 1st of January 2010 and 6th of November 2020. The level of radicalness was determined based on five characteristics of radical innovations. The level of evidence was classified according to the level of evidence scale of the University of Oxford. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as a framework to classify the barriers and facilitators. Findings: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine publications were included, concerning six technological, two organizational and one treatment innovation. The main barriers for radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare were lack of human, material and financial resources, and lack of integration and organizational readiness. The main facilitators included a supportive culture, sufficient training, education and knowledge, and recognition of the expected added value. Originality/value: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review examining the barriers and facilitators of radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare. To ease radical innovation implementation, alternative performance systems may be helpful, including the following prerequisites: (1) Money, (2) Added value, (3) Timely knowledge and integration, (4) Culture, and (5) Human resources (MATCH). This study highlights the need for more high-level evidence studies in this area

The barriers and facilitators of radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare: A systematic review

Purpose: This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of radical innovations in secondary healthcare. Design/methodology/approach: A systematic review was conducted and presented in accordance with a PRISMA flowchart. The databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched for original publications in English between the 1st of January 2010 and 6th of November 2020. The level of radicalness was determined based on five characteristics of radical innovations. The level of evidence was classified according to the level of evidence scale of the University of Oxford. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as a framework to classify the barriers and facilitators. Findings: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine publications were included, concerning six technological, two organizational and one treatment innovation. The main barriers for radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare were lack of human, material and financial resources, and lack of integration and organizational readiness. The main facilitators included a supportive culture, sufficient training, education and knowledge, and recognition of the expected added value. Originality/value: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review examining the barriers and facilitators of radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare. To ease radical innovation implementation, alternative performance systems may be helpful, including the following prerequisites: (1) Money, (2) Added value, (3) Timely knowledge and integration, (4) Culture, and (5) Human resources (MATCH). This study highlights the need for more high-level evidence studies in this area

C11-hydroxy and C11-oxo C₁₉ and C₂₁ steroids: pre-receptor regulation and interaction with androgen and progesterone steroid receptors

C11-oxy C19 and C11-oxy C21 steroids have been identified as novel steroids but their function remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the pre-receptor regulation of C11-oxy steroids by 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (11βHSD) interconversion and potential agonist and antagonist activity associated with the androgen (AR) and progesterone receptors (PRA and PRB). Steroid conversions were investigated in transiently transfected HEK293 cells expressing 11βHSD1 and 11βHSD2, while CV1 cells were utilised for agonist and antagonist assays. The conversion of C11-hydroxy steroids to C11-oxo steroids by 11βHSD2 occurred more readily than the reverse reaction catalysed by 11βHSD1, while the interconversion of C11-oxy C19 steroids was more efficient than C11-oxy C21 steroids. Furthermore, 11-ketodihydrotestosterone (11KDHT), 11-ketotestosterone (11KT) and 11β-hydroxydihydrotestosterone (11OHDHT) were AR agonists, while only progestogens, 11β-hydroxyprogesterone (11βOHP4), 11β-hydroxydihydroprogesterone (11βOHDHP4), 11α-hydroxyprogesterone (11αOHP4), 11α-hydroxydihydroprogesterone (11αOHDHP4), 11-ketoprogesterone (11KP4), 5α-pregnan-17α-diol-3,11,20-trione (11KPdione) and 21-deoxycortisone (21dE) exhibited antagonist activity. C11-hydroxy C21 steroids, 11βOHP4, 11βOHDHP4 and 11αOHP4 exhibited PRA and PRB agonistic activity, while only C11-oxo steroids, 11KP4 and 11-ketoandrostanediol (11K3αdiol) demonstrated PRB agonism. While no steroids antagonised the PRA, 11OHA4, 11β-hydroxytestosterone (11OHT), 11KT and 11KDHT exhibited PRB antagonism. The regulatory role of 11βHSD isozymes impacting receptor activation is clear-C11-oxo androgens exhibit AR agonist activity; only C11-hydroxy progestogens exhibit PRA and PRB agonist activity. Regulation by the downstream metabolites of active C11-oxy steroids at the receptor level is apparent-C11-hydroxy and C11-oxo metabolites antagonize the AR and PRB, progestogens the former, androgens the latter. The findings highlight the intricate interplay between receptors and active as well as "inactive" C11-oxy steroids, suggesting novel regulatory tiers.</p