Developing National Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT) reporting

How they reacted

Stakeholders want to work collaboratively to improve data quality, standardisation and utilisation

Key drivers for this collaborative working were:

Shared motivation: the shared desire to improve treatment and outcomes for patients, and to understand whether any differences in treatments affect patient experience and outcomes.

Being user-led: while supported at a national policy level, this work was driven ‘on the ground’ rather than directed from the centre.

Engagement was galvanised by developing systems and functionalities in close collaboration with those who would benefit most, i.e. those using SACT data in routine clinical practice.

This approach supported really effective systems development, as users are always best-placed to understand implementation needs, and can offer insight on potential solutions to problems.

The right expertise and ‘reach’: the SACT mapping work was led by a clinical pharmacist who was able to supply domain expertise and reach into the pharmacy sector, to achieve engagement and delivery. IHDP and PHS prioritisation of this expert resource was a key factor in achieving a successful outcome to the work.

Sufficient and appropriate resource: crucial to the success of the SACT project was the allocation by IHDP of sufficient resource to carry out the complex data mapping work. This provided those who needed to contribute their expertise with the support to prioritise effort.

Supported by IHDP, the SCRIS delivery team embraced this approach and allowed the work to be driven by clinicians, who worked with Health Boards, and proactively engaged the National SACT Data Group throughout.

This way of working aligns with the overarching IHDP approach to developing the SCIF - to put in place a framework that helps others to do their jobs effectively, rather than a prescriptive system directed from the centre.

Spotlight on

National dialogue can have unintended benefits

A national dialogue over data and systems enabled broader questions to surface and be addressed. For example, a discussion arose amongst clinicians around definitions and use of the terms ‘palliative’ and ‘curative’ in cancer treatment. This led (with the input of Macmillan Cancer Support) to consultation with patients over how language is used and what this means to patients and their families. As a result, the terms now used are curable and non-curable, which are more meaningful to patients.

Key steps

Continously highlight the shared motivation and vision to help drive effort and collaboration.

Keep the user at the centre, considering what will help them to work most effectively.

Facilitate access to the right resource, be that expertise, networks and reach, dedicated time, administrative or financial support.

Impact Stories

The ways in which IHDP’s approach and activities contributed to improved outcomes and impact are shown through impact stories.

Cancer Innovation Challenge The IHDP Approach