Poster Presentation 2025 National Cancer Survivorship Conference

Partnering to support statewide improvements in cancer survivorship care (#84)

Tracey Mander 1 , Tegan Nash 1 , Rebecca McIntosh 1 , Julie Symons 2 , Cheryl Martin 2 , Jane Auchettl 2 , Justine Carder 2 , Liz Simkiss 3 , Kathy Quade 2 , Helana Kelly 1 , Michael Jefford 1 4 5 6
  1. Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. Victorian Integrated Cancer Services, Department of Health, Melbourne, Victoria
  3. Department of Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  4. Centre for Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  5. Centre for Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  6. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Background

The Victorian Integrated Cancer Services (VICS) and the Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre (ACSC) collaborated on a two-year project to improve cancer survivorship care statewide. This project aimed to prioritise areas for focus and pilot improvement initiatives.

Methodology

Previous statewide work had identified possible areas for service improvement. Consumers (n=69) reviewed these topics and added a further one. Health professionals (HP, n=99) then prioritised areas to focus upon. Prioritised improvement initiatives were needs assessment (NA) and survivorship care plans (SCP). Interventions to be piloted were developed through HP and consumer co-design workshops. VICS staff engaged health services (hospitals) to pilot one initiative for 12 weeks, utilising existing resources. ACSC provided survivorship education to pilot sites and supported VICS staff. Evaluation was via online surveys: one to HPs piloting initiatives to assess feasibility, acceptability, enablers and barriers; and one to VICS staff to assess confidence and experience supporting pilot sites.

Results

13 health services piloted improvement initiatives, involving 62 staff and 131 patients. 33 staff (53% response) from 12 health services completed the evaluation. Most were nurses (94%), 36% with 5-9 years cancer experience. Most HP found NA and SCP easy to adopt (80% and 81% respectively). Most HP found NA and SCP acceptable (86% and 95% respectively). Enablers included tailoring to local needs and VICS support. Barriers included difficulty identifying suitable patients, and time constraints.

All VICS staff completed the evaluation (N=10). All positively endorsed “I was confident to support my health service(s) to implement the pilot strategy”. All agreed initiatives improved survivorship care and were transferable to other services. All rated ACSC support as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’.

Conclusion

Both NA and SCP initiatives were acceptable and able to be implemented within existing resources. ACSC and VICS staff supported implementation. Future ACSC/VICS collaboration could enhance sustainability and address barriers.