Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Radiation Oncology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Methodology

Group consensus peer review in radiation oncology: commitment to quality

Authors: W Neil Duggar, Rahul Bhandari, Chunli Claus Yang, Srinivasan Vijayakumar

Published in: Radiation Oncology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Peer review, especially prospective peer review, has been supported by professional organizations as an important element in optimal Radiation Oncology practice based on its demonstration of efficacy at detecting and preventing errors prior to patient treatment. Implementation of peer review is not without barriers, but solutions do exist to mitigate or eliminate some of those barriers.

Methods

Peer review practice at our institution involves three key elements: new patient conference, treatment planning conference, and chart rounds. The treatment planning conference is an adaptation of the group consensus peer review model from radiology which utilizes a group of peers reviewing each treatment plan prior to implementation. The peer group in radiation oncology includes Radiation Oncologists, Physician Residents, Medical Physicists, Dosimetrists, and Therapists. Thus, technical and clinical aspects of each plan are evaluated simultaneously.

Results

Though peer review is held in high regard in Radiation Oncology, many barriers commonly exist preventing optimal implementation such as time intensiveness, repetition, and distraction from clinic time with patients. Through the use of automated review tools and commitment by individuals and administration in regards to staffing, scheduling, and responsibilities, these barriers have been mitigated to implement this Group Consensus Peer Review model into a Radiation Oncology Clinic.

Conclusion

A Group Consensus Peer Review model has been implemented with strategies to address common barriers to effective and efficient peer review.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Johnstone Peter AS. Radiation oncology peer review: measuring quality. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(5):314–6.CrossRefPubMed Johnstone Peter AS. Radiation oncology peer review: measuring quality. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(5):314–6.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Thaker NG, Sturdevant L, Jhingran A, et al. Assessing the quality of a radiation oncology case-based, peer-review program in an integrated academic and community Cancer center network. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(4):e476–86.CrossRefPubMed Thaker NG, Sturdevant L, Jhingran A, et al. Assessing the quality of a radiation oncology case-based, peer-review program in an integrated academic and community Cancer center network. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(4):e476–86.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Hoopes DJ, Johnstone PA, Chapin PS, et al. Practice patterns for peer review in radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5(1):32–8.CrossRefPubMed Hoopes DJ, Johnstone PA, Chapin PS, et al. Practice patterns for peer review in radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5(1):32–8.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Marks LB, Adams RD, Pawlicki T, et al. Enhancing the role of case oriented peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology: executive summary. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2013;3:149–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Marks LB, Adams RD, Pawlicki T, et al. Enhancing the role of case oriented peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology: executive summary. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2013;3:149–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Lefresne S, Olivotto IA, Joe H, et al. Impact of quality assurance rounds in a Canadian radiation therapy department. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:e117–21.CrossRefPubMed Lefresne S, Olivotto IA, Joe H, et al. Impact of quality assurance rounds in a Canadian radiation therapy department. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:e117–21.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Brundage MD, Dixon PF, Mackillop WJ, et al. A real-time audit of radiation therapy in a regional cancer center. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:115–24.CrossRefPubMed Brundage MD, Dixon PF, Mackillop WJ, et al. A real-time audit of radiation therapy in a regional cancer center. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:115–24.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Patton GA, Gaffney DK, Moeller JH. Facilitation of radiotherapeutic error by computerized record and verify systems. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;56:50–7.CrossRefPubMed Patton GA, Gaffney DK, Moeller JH. Facilitation of radiotherapeutic error by computerized record and verify systems. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;56:50–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Dutreix A. When and how can we improve precision in radiotherapy? Radiother Oncol. 1984;2:275–92.CrossRefPubMed Dutreix A. When and how can we improve precision in radiotherapy? Radiother Oncol. 1984;2:275–92.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Huang G, Medlam G, Lee J, et al. Error in the delivery of radiation therapy: results of a quality assurance review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61:1590–5.CrossRefPubMed Huang G, Medlam G, Lee J, et al. Error in the delivery of radiation therapy: results of a quality assurance review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61:1590–5.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Boxer M, Forstner D, Kneebone A, et al. Impact of a real-time peer review audit on patient management in a radiation oncology department. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2009;53:405–11.CrossRefPubMed Boxer M, Forstner D, Kneebone A, et al. Impact of a real-time peer review audit on patient management in a radiation oncology department. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2009;53:405–11.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Brunskill K, Nguyen TK, Boldt GR, et al. Does peer review of radiation plans affect clinical care? A systematic review of the literature. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97:27–34.CrossRefPubMed Brunskill K, Nguyen TK, Boldt GR, et al. Does peer review of radiation plans affect clinical care? A systematic review of the literature. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97:27–34.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Brundage M, Foxcroft S, McGowan T, et al. A survey of radiation treatment planning peer review activities in a provincial radiation oncology programme: current practice and future directions. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003241.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Brundage M, Foxcroft S, McGowan T, et al. A survey of radiation treatment planning peer review activities in a provincial radiation oncology programme: current practice and future directions. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003241.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Cionini L, Gardani G, Gabriele P, et al. Quality indicators in radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2007;82:191–200.CrossRefPubMed Cionini L, Gardani G, Gabriele P, et al. Quality indicators in radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2007;82:191–200.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference World Alliance for Patient Safety. Radiotherapy risk profile: World Health Organization; 2008. World Alliance for Patient Safety. Radiotherapy risk profile: World Health Organization; 2008.
15.
go back to reference Breen SL, Zhang B. Audit of an automated checklist for quality control of radiotherapy treatment plans. Radiother Oncol. 2010;97:579–84.CrossRefPubMed Breen SL, Zhang B. Audit of an automated checklist for quality control of radiotherapy treatment plans. Radiother Oncol. 2010;97:579–84.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Harvey BH, Alkasab TK, Prabhaker AM, et al. Radiologist peer review by group consensus. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13:656–62.CrossRefPubMed Harvey BH, Alkasab TK, Prabhaker AM, et al. Radiologist peer review by group consensus. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13:656–62.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Caissie A, Rouette J, Jugpal P, et al. A pan-Canadian survey of peer review practices in radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016;6:342–51.CrossRefPubMed Caissie A, Rouette J, Jugpal P, et al. A pan-Canadian survey of peer review practices in radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016;6:342–51.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Group consensus peer review in radiation oncology: commitment to quality
Authors
W Neil Duggar
Rahul Bhandari
Chunli Claus Yang
Srinivasan Vijayakumar
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Radiation Oncology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1748-717X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1006-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Radiation Oncology 1/2018 Go to the issue