PURPOSE: To report the development, structure, and implementation of a real-time clinical radiotherapy audit of the practice of radiation oncology in a regional cancer center. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiotherapy treatment plans were audited by a real-time peer-review process over an 8-year period (1989-1996). The overall goal of the audit was to establish a process for quality assurance (QA) of radiotherapy planning and prescription for individual patients. A parallel process was developed to audit the implementation of intervention-specific radiotherapy treatment policies. RESULTS: A total of 3052 treatment plans were audited. Of these, 124 (4.1%) were not approved by the audit due to apparent errors in radiation planning. The majority of the nonapproved plans (79%) were modified prior to initiating treatment; the audit provided important clinical feedback about individual patient care in these instances. Most of the remaining nonapproved plans were deviations from normal practice due to patient-specific considerations. A further 110 (3.6% of all audited plans) were not approved by the audit due to deviations from radiotherapy treatment policy. A minority of these plans (22%) were modified prior to initiating treatment and the remainder provided important feedback for continuous quality improvement of treatment policies. CONCLUSION: A real-time audit of radiotherapy practice in a regional cancer center setting proved feasible and provided important direct and indirect patient benefits.
PURPOSE: To report the development, structure, and implementation of a real-time clinical radiotherapy audit of the practice of radiation oncology in a regional cancer center. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiotherapy treatment plans were audited by a real-time peer-review process over an 8-year period (1989-1996). The overall goal of the audit was to establish a process for quality assurance (QA) of radiotherapy planning and prescription for individual patients. A parallel process was developed to audit the implementation of intervention-specific radiotherapy treatment policies. RESULTS: A total of 3052 treatment plans were audited. Of these, 124 (4.1%) were not approved by the audit due to apparent errors in radiation planning. The majority of the nonapproved plans (79%) were modified prior to initiating treatment; the audit provided important clinical feedback about individual patient care in these instances. Most of the remaining nonapproved plans were deviations from normal practice due to patient-specific considerations. A further 110 (3.6% of all audited plans) were not approved by the audit due to deviations from radiotherapy treatment policy. A minority of these plans (22%) were modified prior to initiating treatment and the remainder provided important feedback for continuous quality improvement of treatment policies. CONCLUSION: A real-time audit of radiotherapy practice in a regional cancer center setting proved feasible and provided important direct and indirect patient benefits.
Authors: Maurizio Portaluri; Fulvio Italo Maria Fucilli; Emilio Antonio Luca Gianicolo; Francesco Tramacere; Maria Carmen Francavilla; Cristina De Tommaso; Roberta Castagna; Giorgio Pili Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 3.621
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
Authors: Michael Brundage; Sophie Foxcroft; Tom McGowan; Eric Gutierrez; Michael Sharpe; Padraig Warde Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-07-31 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lawrence B Marks; Robert D Adams; Todd Pawlicki; Albert L Blumberg; David Hoopes; Michael D Brundage; Benedick A Fraass Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-03-16