A survey of radiation treatment planning peer-review activities in a provincial radiation oncology programme: current practice and future directions.
cross_sectional · Level IV
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 23903814.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003241 and PMC identifier 3731715.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
To describe current patterns of practice of radiation oncology peer review within a provincial cancer system, identifying barriers and facilitators to its use with the ultimate aim of process improvement. A survey of radiation oncology programmes at provincial cancer centres. All cancer centres within the province of Ontario, Canada (n=14). These are community-based outpatient facilities overseen by Cancer Care Ontario, the provincial cancer agency. A delegate from each radiation oncology programme filled out a single survey based on input from their multidisciplinary team. Rated importance of peer review; current utilisation; format of the peer-review process; organisation and timing; case attributes; outcomes of the peer-review process and perceived barriers and facilitators to expanding peer-review processes. 14 (100%) centres responded. All rated the importance of peer review as at least 8/10 (10=extremely important). Detection of medical error and improvement of planning processes were the highest rated perceived benefits of peer review (each median 9/10). Six centres (43%) reviewed at least 50% of curative cases; four of these centres (29%) conducted peer review in more than 80% of cases treated with curative intent. Fewer than 20% of cases treated with palliative intent were reviewed in most centres. Five centres (36%) reported usually conducting peer review prior to the initiation of treatment. Five centres (36%) recorded the outcomes of peer review on the medical record. Thirteen centres (93%) planned to expand peer-review activities; a critical mass of radiation oncologists was the most important limiting factor (median 6/10). Radiation oncology peer-review practices can vary even within a cancer system with provincial oversight. The application of guidelines and standards for peer-review processes, and monitoring of implementation and outcomes, will require effective knowledge translation activities.