100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?
- PDF / 627,610 Bytes
- 9 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 69 Downloads / 185 Views
RESEARCH ARTICLE
100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible? E. Martin‑Garcia1,3 · F. Celada‑Álvarez1 · M. J. Pérez‑Calatayud1 · M. Rodriguez‑Pla1 · O. Prato‑Carreño1 · D. Farga‑Albiol1 · O. Pons‑Llanas1 · S. Roldán‑Ortega1 · E. Collado‑Ballesteros1 · F. J. Martinez‑Arcelus1 · Y. Bernisz‑Diaz1 · V. A. Macias1 · J. Chimeno2 · J. Gimeno‑Olmos2 · F. Lliso2 · V. Carmona2 · J. C. Ruiz2 · J. Pérez‑Calatayud2 · A. Tormo‑Micó1 · A. J. Conde‑Moreno1 Received: 16 December 2019 / Accepted: 12 May 2020 © Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO) 2020
Abstract Purpose Peer review has been proposed as a strategy to ensure patient safety and plan quality in radiation oncology. Despite its potential benefits, barriers commonly exist to its optimal implementation in daily clinical routine. Our purpose is to analyze peer-review process at our institution. Methods and materials Based on our group peer-review process, we quantified the rate of plan changes, time and resources needed for this process. Prospectively, data on cases presented at our institutional peer-review conference attended by physicians, resident physicians and physicists were collected. Items such as time to present per case, type of patient (adult or pediatric), treatment intent, dose, aimed technique, disease location and receipt of previous radiation were gathered. Cases were then analyzed to determine the rate of major change, minor change and plan rejection after presentation as well as the median time per session. Results Over a period of 4 weeks, 148 cases were reviewed. Median of attendants was six physicians, three in-trainingphysicians and one physicist. Median time per session was 38 (4–72) minutes. 59.5% of cases presented in 1–4 min, 32.4% in 5–9 min and 8.1% in ≥ 10 min. 79.1% of cases were accepted without changes, 11.5% with minor changes, 6% with major changes and 3.4% were rejected with indication of new presentation. Most frequent reason of change was contouring corrections (53.8%) followed by dose or fractionation (26.9%). Conclusion Everyday group consensus peer review is an efficient manner to recollect clinical and technical data of cases presented to ensure quality radiation care before initiation of treatment as well as ensuring department quality in a feedback team environment. This model is feasible within the normal operation of every radiation oncology Department. Keywords Peer review · Quality assurance · Radiation oncology · Patient safety · Treatment planning · Treatment quality Abbreviations 3D-CRT Three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy ACR American College of Radiology AI Artificial intelligence ASTRO American Society for Radiation Oncology * E. Martin‑Garcia [email protected]; [email protected] 1
Radiotherapy Department, La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital, Valencia, Spain
2
Physics Section, Radiotherapy Department, La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital, Valencia, Spain
3
Department of Radiation Oncology, La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital, A
Data Loading...
