Background: The Canadian GILENYA® Go ProgramTM provides education and support to people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis during fingolimod treatment. Methods: Data were collected and analyzed from the time of the first individual enrolled in March 2011 to March 31, 2014. Individuals were excluded if they withdrew from the program prior to receiving the first dose, or had not completed the first dose observation (FDO) at the time of data cut-off. Reports of adverse effects were validated with a database of adverse events reported to Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. Results: A total of 2,399 individuals had completed FDO at the end of the three-year observation period. Mean age was 41.2 years; 75.2% were female. The most recent prior therapies reported were interferon-β agents (50.2%), glatiramer acetate (31.1%), natalizumab (14.2%), no prior therapy (3.3%), and other agent (1.1%). Reasons for switching to fingolimod were lack of efficacy (34.9%), side effects (34.6%), and dissatisfaction with injections/infusion (30.4%). Continuation rates with fingolimod at 12, 24 and 30 months were 80.7%, 76.6% and 76.0%, respectively. The discontinuation rate due to reported lack of efficacy during the three-year period was 1.3%. There was 94.4% adherence to the scheduled ophthalmic examination. Conclusions: The GILENYA® Go ProgramTM captures data for virtually all fingolimod-treated patients in Canada, enabling the evaluation of fingolimod use in routine practice. Ongoing patient support and reminders to take the medication, in conjunction with physicians’ and/or patients’ perception of the efficacy and tolerability of fingolimod, resulted in a high rate of continuation during longer-term therapy.

Purpose: The aims of this study were to describe the scope of practice of the radiotherapy ’on treatment’ review radiographer. This included trying to gain an insight in to what knowledge, skills and characteristics are needed to operate in this role extension and to establish whether the role requires skills in areas of patient care and support which are beyond the generic training of a treatment floor therapy radiographer.

Method: A qualitative grounded theory methodology was employed using semi-structured interviews with ’on treatment’ review radiographers from three different departments. The departments were selected to maximise the amount of data collected, consequently they were chosen due to the differences in the way their review service was set up. This ranged from full time, to team led, to part time review. Using coding and constant comparative analysis based on grounded theory, categories were developed describing attributes of the role.

Results: The scope of practice and challenges of the role varied slightly between the departments. The core categories needed to operate in the role were identified as knowledge, listening skills and characteristics with sub categories of self-reflection, interpersonal skills and attitudes.

Conclusions: To be a review radiographer requires advanced knowledge at Masters level, with well developed listening and interpersonal skills and enjoyment of the people side of the profession. These skills need to be regularly practised, updated and reflected upon. The requirements for further training needs are noted and recommendations for further research are identified along with the limitations of this research. The role appears to require knowledge and skills in areas of patient care and support, which are above the level of practice of a treatment floor therapy radiographer.