PURPOSE: Academic centers increasingly find a need to define a comprehensive peer-review program that can translate high-quality radiation therapy (RT) to community network sites. In this study, we describe the initial results of a quarterly quality audit program that aims to improve RT peer-review and provider educational processes across community sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic tool was used by community-based certified member (CM) sites to enter clinical treatment information about patients undergoing peer review. At least 10% of the patient load for each CM physician was selected for audit on a quarterly basis by expert academic faculty. Quality metrics included the review of the management plan, technical plan, and other indicators. RT was scored as being concordant or nonconcordant with institutional guidelines, national standards, or expert judgment. RESULTS: A total of 719 patients were entered into the peer-review database by the first four CM sites. Of 14% of patients audited, 17% (18 of 104) were deemed nonconcordant. Nonconcordance rates were lowest in prevalent disease sites, such as breast (16%), colorectal (14%), and lung (12%), whereas rates were highest in lymphoma (50%), brain (44%), and gynecology (27%). Deficiencies included incomplete staging work-up, incorrect target and normal tissue delineation, and nonadherence to accepted dose-volume constraints. CONCLUSION: Given the high rate of nonconcordance, we recommend prospective, pre-RT peer review of all patients, and, in particular, expert review of patients that are from low-volume or complex disease sites. An integrated approach to peer review holds a promise of improving the quality, safety, and value of cancer therapy in the community setting.
PURPOSE: Academic centers increasingly find a need to define a comprehensive peer-review program that can translate high-quality radiation therapy (RT) to community network sites. In this study, we describe the initial results of a quarterly quality audit program that aims to improve RT peer-review and provider educational processes across community sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic tool was used by community-based certified member (CM) sites to enter clinical treatment information about patients undergoing peer review. At least 10% of the patient load for each CM physician was selected for audit on a quarterly basis by expert academic faculty. Quality metrics included the review of the management plan, technical plan, and other indicators. RT was scored as being concordant or nonconcordant with institutional guidelines, national standards, or expert judgment. RESULTS: A total of 719 patients were entered into the peer-review database by the first four CM sites. Of 14% of patients audited, 17% (18 of 104) were deemed nonconcordant. Nonconcordance rates were lowest in prevalent disease sites, such as breast (16%), colorectal (14%), and lung (12%), whereas rates were highest in lymphoma (50%), brain (44%), and gynecology (27%). Deficiencies included incomplete staging work-up, incorrect target and normal tissue delineation, and nonadherence to accepted dose-volume constraints. CONCLUSION: Given the high rate of nonconcordance, we recommend prospective, pre-RT peer review of all patients, and, in particular, expert review of patients that are from low-volume or complex disease sites. An integrated approach to peer review holds a promise of improving the quality, safety, and value of cancer therapy in the community setting.
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