A survey of radiation treatment planning peer-review activities in a provincial radiation oncology programme: current practice and future directions

Objectives 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. Design A survey of radiation oncology programmes at provincial cancer centres. Setting 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. Participants A delegate from each radiation oncology programme filled out a single survey based on input from their multidisciplinary team. Outcome measures 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. Results 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). Conclusions 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.

[1]  D Forstner,et al.  Impact of a real‐time peer review audit on patient management in a radiation oncology department , 2009, Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology.

[2]  C. Orton,et al.  Point/Counterpoint. Peer reviews of medical physics practices often yield little information because the AAPM has not been proactive in developing appropriate peer-review guidelines. , 2007, Medical physics.

[3]  C. Orton,et al.  Peer reviews of medical physics practices often yield little information because the AAPM has not been proactive in developing appropriate peer-review guidelines. , 2007, Medical physics.

[4]  R. Cowan,et al.  Assessing the effect of a contouring protocol on postprostatectomy radiotherapy clinical target volumes and interphysician variation. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  M. Brundage,et al.  A real-time audit of radiation therapy in a regional cancer center. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  Issam El Naqa,et al.  Tools for consensus analysis of experts' contours for radiotherapy structure definitions. , 2010, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[7]  D. de Ruysscher,et al.  Variations in target volume definition for postoperative radiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of an international contouring study. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  J. I. Reppun.  Peer Review , 2014, MTZ worldwide.

[9]  R L Kane,et al.  Peer review of the quality of care. Reliability and sources of variability for outcome and process assessments. , 1997, JAMA.

[10]  Issam El-Naqa,et al.  Variation in the definition of clinical target volumes for pelvic nodal conformal radiation therapy for prostate cancer. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  A D Oxman,et al.  Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. , 2006, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[12]  Todd Pawlicki,et al.  The new radiation therapy clinical practice: the emerging role of clinical peer review for radiation therapists and medical dosimetrists. , 2010, Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

[13]  W. Woodward,et al.  Variability of target and normal structure delineation for breast cancer radiotherapy: an RTOG Multi-Institutional and Multiobserver Study. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  N. Cellini,et al.  Quality assurance in radiation oncology. , 1996, Rays.

[15]  T. Shakespeare,et al.  RANZCR 2006 Peer review audit instrument , 2008, Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology.

[16]  Issam El Naqa,et al.  Development of RTOG consensus guidelines for the definition of the clinical target volume for postoperative conformal radiation therapy for prostate cancer. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  T. Shakespeare,et al.  Evaluation of an audit with feedback continuing medical education program for radiation oncologists. , 2005, Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education.

[18]  B. Corn,et al.  An Interobserver Study of Prostatic Fossa Clinical Target Volume Delineation in Clinical Practice: Are Regions of Recurrence Adequately Targeted? , 2010, American journal of clinical oncology.

[19]  Jane M. Young,et al.  Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[20]  Brian O'Sullivan,et al.  Critical impact of radiotherapy protocol compliance and quality in the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer: results from TROG 02.02. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  Franca Foppiano,et al.  The impact of contouring uncertainty on rectal 3D dose-volume data: results of a dummy run in a multicenter trial (AIROPROS01-02). , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[22]  T. Pawlicki,et al.  Enhancing the role of case-oriented peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology: Executive summary , 2013, Practical radiation oncology.