1. Change through influence without authority: introducing cancer supportive care screening into health care services Tracey Tobias, Jill Beattie, Lisa Brady

2. Congratulations! You’ve been appointed to lead a change initiative! It’s success hinges on the cooperation of several people across multiple organisations over whom you have no formal authority

3. Southern Melbourne Integrated Cancer service (SMICS): Established in 2004 To facilitate the implementation of the Victorian Government cancer reforms across southern Melbourne A joint initiative of Alfred Health, Cabrini Health, Peninsula Health and Southern Health. The health services are collectively known as SMICS member health services Collaborative relationship Does not have the capacity to enforce initiatives Has therefore adopted a position of influence

4. Developing SMICS’ supportive care agenda Aim: Develop supportive care priorities across southern Melbourne’s cancer services Method: Consultation mapping project of current supportive care services Results: Seven inter-related priorities were agreed: increasing the profile of supportive care improving access to a skilled supportive care workforce screening for supportive care needs patient communication and access to information access to emotional support, counselling, psychology and mental health services access to palliative care resources continuity and integration of care

5. Influence not Authority command and-control leadership—the “I leader, you follower” approach—is not applicable in this context Networking, coalition building, persuading and negotiating.

6. The method of influence A constellation of capabilities: Networking Constructive persuasion and negotiation Consultation Coalition building Johnstone, 2003

7. Project Approach Primary purpose: to pilot an agreed supportive care screening tool to identify the needs of all new patients a SMICS member organisation. The project deliverables included: designing and testing an agreed supportive care screening tool, confirming referral pathways for identified needs, education of staff, evaluation and data analysis. A Working Group was established and chaired by the Operations Director, membership included a broad representation from all relevant stakeholder groups including consumers

8. The Screening Tool National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2010).

9. Patient Survey Responses 1.Tool easy to complete 2.Able to understand 3.Helped patients think about their day to day needs 4.Time spent discussing tool was useful 5.Patient felt they could ask questions 6.Felt responses helpful 7.Found experience useful

10. Staff Survey Responses Staff feedback regarding the usefulness of the screening tool was poor at the post implementation phase.

11. Patient identified problems

12. Patients concerns Patients’ three most important concerns

13. Patient identified levels of distress

14. Focus group study: Method Qualitative multi-site study (3 sites) Drawing on a quality improvement approach –supports working in partnership with staff to evaluate and inform further development in practice Purposive sampling –all Chemotherapy Day Unit registered nurses and allied health professional staff –who provide direct cancer care Focus groups –Four semi-structured questions –one hour, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim –content analysed to identify enablers and barriers Ethical approval from Monash University Human Ethics Committee and study site ethics committees.

15. Focus group study: Results Sample –3 focus groups with registered nurses (n=21) and allied health staff (n=3) Barriers –Uncertainty about purpose of the tool –When to screen and re-screen –Competing priorities with high workload –Screening without providing the service –Under-resourcing of allied health staff –Patient anxiety at time of screening –Patients refusing referrals –Staff perception that they already identify supportive care needs

16. Focus group study: Results cont… Enablers –Engaging staff in design & implementation –Allocating a specific time & person to complete the screening –Developing a resource folder –Triggers, such as having the tools visually accessible when patients’ present –Staff support Benefits of supportive care screening –Holistic tool that increased awareness of needs –Useful for monitoring change –Normalisation of the stress response to cancer diagnosis

17. Focus group study: Results cont… Recommendations – More education of staff & patients –Refinement of the tool –Review of the distress score cut-off point –Increase accessibility to allied health professionals Conclusion –Important findings for informing future workforce planning and activities needed to improve implementation of supportive care in practice

18. Screening Rates Chemotherapy Day Units 2009 – 0% 2011 – 65% 2012 – 85% Total Patient Population 2011 – 2% 2012 – 17% 2013 – 51%

19. Conclusion Through the implementation of supportive care screening for cancer patients, SMICS has demonstrated that influential leadership rather than holding a position of authority has the ability to impact on meaningful service improvements

20. Thank You “The secret of my influence has always been that it remained secret.” ― Salvador DalíSalvador Dalí