Sarah Nicole Hamilton1, Haroon Hasan2, Christina Parsons3, Scott Tyldesley3, A Fuchsia Howard4, Mary Anne Bobinski5, Karen Goddard3. 1. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency - Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Electronic address: shamilton7@bccancer.bc.ca. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency - Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency - Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 4. School of Population and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine Canadian radiation oncologists' (ROs) views regarding the benefits, workload implications, and legal liability of the peer review quality assurance (QA) process. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 26-item anonymous survey was electronically distributed to all current practicing ROs in Canada through the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists membership to obtain their opinions regarding peer review. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 145 (36%) of 404 ROs. Most (82%) reported their practice is moderately or very busy and more than two-thirds (69%) felt stressed by their workload. A peer review process is standard at 92% of respondents' institutions. The majority reported this consists of weekly meetings where ROs and other health care providers convene to review radiation treatment plans; some have tumor site-specific rounds while others have 1 meeting for all sites. Nearly all (97%) found this type of QA is beneficial for review of radical plans and 71% found it is beneficial for palliative plans. Incorporating peer review into their current work schedule for all sites was deemed by 37% of respondents to be not or slightly difficult, while 40% found it moderately difficult and 22% very or extremely difficult. The majority (91%) reported that creating a work code to document QA meetings would be helpful and 69% stated that extra resources such as scheduling protected time, designating other health care providers QA coordinators, and increasing overall RO manpower are needed to implement effective peer review. Over half (52%) felt documenting QA meeting minutes would increase legal liability. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ROs who responded found that peer review is beneficial and participate in peer review for at least some of the tumor sites they treat. However, most stated that extra resources are required to effectively implement QA for all tumor sites in their current schedule.
PURPOSE: To determine Canadian radiation oncologists' (ROs) views regarding the benefits, workload implications, and legal liability of the peer review quality assurance (QA) process. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 26-item anonymous survey was electronically distributed to all current practicing ROs in Canada through the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists membership to obtain their opinions regarding peer review. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 145 (36%) of 404 ROs. Most (82%) reported their practice is moderately or very busy and more than two-thirds (69%) felt stressed by their workload. A peer review process is standard at 92% of respondents' institutions. The majority reported this consists of weekly meetings where ROs and other health care providers convene to review radiation treatment plans; some have tumor site-specific rounds while others have 1 meeting for all sites. Nearly all (97%) found this type of QA is beneficial for review of radical plans and 71% found it is beneficial for palliative plans. Incorporating peer review into their current work schedule for all sites was deemed by 37% of respondents to be not or slightly difficult, while 40% found it moderately difficult and 22% very or extremely difficult. The majority (91%) reported that creating a work code to document QA meetings would be helpful and 69% stated that extra resources such as scheduling protected time, designating other health care providers QA coordinators, and increasing overall RO manpower are needed to implement effective peer review. Over half (52%) felt documenting QA meeting minutes would increase legal liability. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ROs who responded found that peer review is beneficial and participate in peer review for at least some of the tumor sites they treat. However, most stated that extra resources are required to effectively implement QA for all tumor sites in their current schedule.
Authors: Benjamin T Cooper; Anuj Goenka; Kevin Sine; Jae Y Lee; Brian H Chon; Henry K Tsai; Eugen B Hug; Hiral P Fontanilla Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2020-06-22