Amanda Caissie1, Julie Rouette2, Paul Jugpal3, Carol-Anne Davis3, Helmut Hollenhorst4, Jennifer O'Donnell5, Gunita Mitera6, Michael D Brundage7. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dalhousie University, Saint John, NB, Canada. 2. Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, ON, Canada. 3. Radiation Therapy Services, Nova Scotia Cancer Center, Halifax, NS, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada. 5. Radiation Therapy Services, Nova Scotia Cancer Center, Halifax, NS, Canada. 6. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, Canada; Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 7. Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, ON, Canada; Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada. Electronic address: michael.brundage@krcc.on.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Peer review (PR) of treatment plans has been recognized internationally as a key component of quality care in radiation oncology programs (ROPs). We conducted a survey of Canadian ROPs to describe current PR practices and identify barriers/facilitators to PR optimization. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 42-item e-survey was sent to all Canadian ROPs (n = 44). Survey development was guided by expert consensus, literature review, and existing guidelines. One multidisciplinary response per ROP was requested. RESULTS: Response rate was 100.0% (44/44). All ROPs (100.0%) reported conducting some PR and rated its importance as 7/10 or higher (10 = extremely important). One-half of ROPs (52.3%) peer-reviewed >80% of curative treatment plans. ROPs reported performing PR "always/almost always" pretreatment (38.6%) or before 25% of radiation therapy delivery (52.3%). The majority of ROPs reported recommending major plan changes in <5% of plans (88.6%) and documenting findings in the medical record (58.1%). Barriers to PR were radiation oncologist availability (34.1%) and time constraints (27.3%). Facilitators included development of PR standards (97.7%) and education/support (90.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The ROPs perceive PR as highly important, but substantial variation in the extent, timing, and documentation of PR exists. The understanding of current PR activities, barriers, and facilitators will inform the development of initiatives to optimize PR in radiation oncology.
PURPOSE: Peer review (PR) of treatment plans has been recognized internationally as a key component of quality care in radiation oncology programs (ROPs). We conducted a survey of Canadian ROPs to describe current PR practices and identify barriers/facilitators to PR optimization. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 42-item e-survey was sent to all Canadian ROPs (n = 44). Survey development was guided by expert consensus, literature review, and existing guidelines. One multidisciplinary response per ROP was requested. RESULTS: Response rate was 100.0% (44/44). All ROPs (100.0%) reported conducting some PR and rated its importance as 7/10 or higher (10 = extremely important). One-half of ROPs (52.3%) peer-reviewed >80% of curative treatment plans. ROPs reported performing PR "always/almost always" pretreatment (38.6%) or before 25% of radiation therapy delivery (52.3%). The majority of ROPs reported recommending major plan changes in <5% of plans (88.6%) and documenting findings in the medical record (58.1%). Barriers to PR were radiation oncologist availability (34.1%) and time constraints (27.3%). Facilitators included development of PR standards (97.7%) and education/support (90.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The ROPs perceive PR as highly important, but substantial variation in the extent, timing, and documentation of PR exists. The understanding of current PR activities, barriers, and facilitators will inform the development of initiatives to optimize PR in radiation oncology.
Authors: E Martin-Garcia; F Celada-Álvarez; M J Pérez-Calatayud; M Rodriguez-Pla; O Prato-Carreño; D Farga-Albiol; O Pons-Llanas; S Roldán-Ortega; E Collado-Ballesteros; F J Martinez-Arcelus; Y Bernisz-Diaz; V A Macias; J Chimeno; J Gimeno-Olmos; F Lliso; V Carmona; J C Ruiz; J Pérez-Calatayud; A Tormo-Micó; A J Conde-Moreno Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 3.405