Practice patterns for peer review in radiation oncology

The Future of Safety and Quality in Radiation Oncology

The increasing complexity of radiation therapy treatment presents new potentials for error and suboptimal care. High-performing programs thus not only require adherence to, but also ongoing improvement of, key safety and quality practices. In this article, we review these practices including standardization, risk analysis, peer review, and maintenance of strong safety culture, while also describing recent innovations and promising future directions. We specifically highlight the growing role of artificial intelligence in radiation oncology, both as a tool to deliver safe, high-quality care and as a potential new source of safety challenges.

"If You're Talking, I Think You're Muted": Follow-up Analysis of Weekly Peer Review Discussion and Plan Changes After Transitioning From Virtual to In-Person Format

AIMS

During the COVID-19 public health emergency, we previously identified decreased rates of radiotherapy (RT) peer review (PR) discussion and plan changes in virtual versus in-person PR conferences. To expand on these findings, we continued to prospectively collect data on all PR conferences from 2021 to 2023 and performed a follow-up analysis before and after the transition back to in-person PR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of weekly PR cases was queried for consecutive cases reviewed before and after the transition from virtual to in-person conferences. Rates of PR discussion and change recommendations were summarized and compared between the virtual and in-person groups. A survey was developed and administered to assess participants' perceived levels of engagement, opinions on optimal PR format, and preferences for future meetings before and 3 months after the transition back to in-person PR.

RESULTS

In total, 2,103 RT plans were reviewed: 1,590 virtually and 513 after the transition back to in-person. There was no difference in faculty attendance between groups. The proportion of cases with PR discussion increased from virtual (9.8%) to in-person (25.5%) format (p < 0.001). In the virtual group, 8.1% of cases had 1 topic and 1.7% had 2+ topics discussed. This increased to 15.8% and 9.7% during in-person PR, respectively (p < 0.001). The rate of change recommendation also increased from 1.5% (virtual) to 3.3% (in-person, p = 0.016). Among cases with at least 1 topic discussed, there was no difference in changes. Survey-reported distraction significantly decreased from virtual to in-person PR (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Upon returning to in-person PR conferences, peer discussion and plan change recommendations significantly increased and returned to pre-pandemic levels, and participants' perceived levels of distraction were reduced. In an increasingly virtual world, additional efforts to develop best practices that maximize PR discussion and minimize distraction outside virtual conferences are warranted.

Systematic Implementation of Effective Quality Assurance Processes for the Assessment of Radiation Target Volumes in Head and Neck Cancer

PURPOSE

Significant heterogeneity exists in clinical quality assurance (QA) practices within radiation oncology departments, with most chart rounds lacking prospective peer-reviewed contour evaluation. This has the potential to significantly affect patient outcomes, particularly for head and neck cancers (HNC) given the large variance in target volume delineation. With this understanding, we incorporated a prospective systematic peer contour-review process into our workflow for all patients with HNC. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of implementing prospective peer review into practice for our National Cancer Institute Designated Cancer Center and to report factors associated with contour modifications.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Starting in November 2020, our department adopted a systematic QA process with real-time metrics, in which contours for all patients with HNC treated with radiation therapy were prospectively peer reviewed and graded. Contours were graded with green (unnecessary), yellow (minor), or red (major) colors based on the degree of peer-recommended modifications. Contours from November 2020 through September 2021 were included for analysis.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty contours were included. Contour grades were made up of 89.7% green, 8.9% yellow, and 1.4% red grades. Physicians with >12 months of clinical experience were less likely to have contour changes requested than those with <12 months (8.3% vs 40.9%; P < .001). Contour grades were significantly associated with physician case load, with physicians presenting more than the median number of 50 cases having significantly less modifications requested than those presenting <50 (6.7% vs 13.3%; P = .013). Physicians working with a resident or fellow were less likely to have contour changes requested than those without a trainee (5.2% vs 12.6%; P = .039). Frequency of major modification requests significantly decreased over time after adoption of prospective peer contour review, with no red grades occurring >6 months after adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of prospective peer contour-review implementation into systematic clinical QA processes for HNC. Physician experience proved to be the highest predictor of approved contours. A growth curve was demonstrated, with major modifications declining after prospective contour review implementation. Even within a high-volume academic practice with subspecialist attendings, >10% of patients had contour changes made as a direct result of prospective peer review.

Radiation Oncology Peer Review in a Community Setting: The Value of Prospective Review

Peer review is an important component of any radiation oncology continuous quality improvement program. While limited guidelines exist, there is no consensus about how peer review should be performed, and large variations exist among different institutions. The purpose of this report is to describe our experience with peer review at a busy Radiation Oncology clinic and to evaluate the difference between prospective and retrospective peer review. We also performed a failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) of the peer review process. Starting in 2015, every peer review session was tracked, including recommended changes to treatment plans. We reviewed the frequency, types and severity of these changes. A team of physicians and physicists conducted an FMEA of the peer review process. Between April 2015 and June 2020, a total of 3,691 patients were peer-reviewed. Out of those, 1,903 were prospective reviews (51.6%). Plans reviewed before treatment were almost 4.5 times more likely to be changed by peer review than those reviewed after the start of treatment (0.9% vs 0.2%). Plan changes after the start of treatment had a higher severity than changes prior to the start of treatment. FMEA identified several critical components of peer review. While there is no national standard for peer review, it is evident that prospective peer review is preferable. There may be a subconscious reluctance to change plans already underway, which could be a barrier to improving plans with the peer review process. Rather than reviewing in a group setting, it would be ideal to individually assign review tasks that are embedded in the clinical flow, assuring prospective review for all patients prior to final physician approval. Individual review rather than group review may be more candid, due to interpersonal concerns about publicly disagreeing with colleagues.

Quality and Safety Considerations in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy: An ASTRO Safety White Paper Update

PURPOSE

This updated report on intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is part of a series of consensus-based white papers previously published by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) addressing patient safety. Since the first white papers were published, IMRT went from widespread use to now being the main delivery technique for many treatment sites. IMRT enables higher radiation doses to be delivered to more precise targets while minimizing the dose to uninvolved normal tissue. Due to the associated complexity, IMRT requires additional planning and safety checks before treatment begins and, therefore, quality and safety considerations for this technique remain important areas of focus.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

ASTRO convened an interdisciplinary task force to assess the original IMRT white paper and update content where appropriate. Recommendations were created using a consensus-building methodology, and task force members indicated their level of agreement based on a 5-point Likert scale, from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." A prespecified threshold of ≥75% of raters who select "strongly agree" or "agree" indicated consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

This IMRT white paper primarily focuses on quality and safety processes in planning and delivery. Building on the prior version, this consensus paper incorporates revised and new guidance documents and technology updates. IMRT requires an interdisciplinary team-based approach, staffed by appropriately trained individuals as well as significant personnel resources, specialized technology, and implementation time. A comprehensive quality assurance program must be developed, using established guidance, to ensure IMRT is performed in a safe and effective manner. Patient safety in the delivery of IMRT is everyone's responsibility, and professional organizations, regulators, vendors, and end-users must work together to ensure the highest levels of safety.

Improving Quality Metrics in Radiation Oncology: Implementation of Pretreatment Peer Review for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Patients with Thoracic Cancer

Purpose

Traditional peer reviews occur weekly, and can take place up to 1 week after the start of treatment. The American Society for Radiation Oncology peer-review white paper identified stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) as a high priority for contour/plan review before the start of treatment, considering both the rapid-dose falloff and short treatment course. Yet, peer-review goals for SBRT must also balance physician time demands and the desire to avoid routine treatment delays that would occur in the setting of a 100% pretreatment (pre-Tx) review compliance requirement or prolonging the standard treatment planning timeline. Herein, we report on our pilot experience of a pre-Tx peer review of thoracic SBRT cases.

Methods and Materials

From March 2020 to August 2021, patients undergoing thoracic SBRT were identified for pre-Tx review, and placed on a quality checklist. We implemented twice-weekly meetings for detailed pre-Tx review of organ-at-risk/target contours and dose constraints in the treatment planning system for SBRT cases. Our quality metric goal was to peer review ≥90% of SBRT cases before exceeding 25% of the dose delivered. We used a statistical process control chart with sigma limits (ie, standard deviations [SDs]) to access compliance rates with pre-Tx review implementation.

Results

We identified 252 patients treated with SBRT to 294 lung nodules. When comparing pre-Tx review completion from initial rollout to full implementation, our rates improved from 19% to 79% (ie, from 1 sigma limit [SDs]) below to >2 sigma limits (SDs) above. Additionally, early completion of any form of contour/plan review (defined as any pre-Tx or standard review completed before exceeding 25% of the dose delivered) increased from 67% to 85% (March 2020-November 2020) to 76% to 94% (December 2020-August 2021).

Conclusions

We successfully implemented a sustainable workflow for detailed pre-Tx contour/plan review for thoracic SBRT cases in the context of twice-weekly disease site-specific peer-review meetings. We reached our quality improvement objective to peer review ≥90% of SBRT cases before exceeding 25% of the dose delivered. This process was feasible to conduct in an integrated network of sites across our system.

Attitudes and access to resources and strategies to improve quality of radiotherapy among US radiation oncologists: A mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to assess contouring-related practices among US radiation oncologists and explore how access to and use of resources and quality improvement strategies vary based on individual- and organization-level factors.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed methods study with a sequential explanatory design. Surveys were emailed to a random 10% sample of practicing US radiation oncologists. Participating physicians were invited to a semi-structured interview. Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and a multivariable regression model were used to evaluate associations. Interview data were coded using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Survey overall response rate was 24%, and subsequent completion rate was 97%. Contouring-related questions arise in ≥50% of clinical cases among 73% of respondents. Resources accessed first include published atlases (75%) followed by consulting another radiation oncologist (60%). Generalists access consensus guidelines more often than disease-site specialists (P = 0.04), while eContour.org is more often used by generalists (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.2-14.8) and younger physicians (OR 1.33 for each 5-year increase, 95% CI 1.08-1.67). Common physician-reported barriers to optimizing contour quality are time constraints (58%) and lack of access to disease-site specialists (21%). Forty percent (40%, n = 14) of physicians without access to disease-site specialists indicated it could facilitate the adoption of new treatments. Almost all (97%) respondents have formal peer review, but only 43% have contour-specific review, which is more common in academic centres (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Potential opportunities to improve radiation contour quality include improved access to disease-site specialists and contour-specific peer review. Physician time must be considered when designing new strategies.

Radiation oncology peer review in Australia and New Zealand

Peer review is a part of high quality care within radiation oncology, designed to achieve the best outcomes for patients. We discuss the importance of and evidence for peer review in clinical practice. The Royal Australia and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) has evolved a Peer Review Assessment Tool (PRAT) since 1999. We report the results of a RANZCR faculty survey conducted in radiation oncology facilities across Australia and New Zealand to guide the 2019 PRAT revision process, and discuss the development and implementation of the 2019 PRAT. Peer-review processes are now mandated as a component of Australian and International Quality Standards. Several practical recommendations might address challenges for effective implementation of peer review process in routine clinical practice. This includes prioritising tumour sites and treatment techniques for peer review within the time and resources constraints of each institution, improving resource allocation, ensuring optimal timing and duration for peer review meetings, and adopting multi-centre virtual peer review meeting where necessary.

Evaluation of a prospective radiation oncology departmental team review process using standardized simulation directives

INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the utility and value of an institutional, multi-disciplinary radiation oncology team review process prior to radiotherapy (RT) simulation.

METHODS

Over a period of 3 months and through an iterative team-based process, a standardized simulation requisition directive (SSRD) was developed, piloted, modified, and subsequently implemented for all patients treated with external beam RT at a single tertiary care institution from January to December 2020. The SSRDs were reviewed at a daily multi-disciplinary radiation oncology team review conference; modifications consequential to the review were prospectively recorded in a quality database.

RESULTS

1,500 consecutive SSRDs were prospectively reviewed for this study. 397 modifications on 290 (19.3%) SSRDs were recorded and parsed into 5 main categories and 18 subcategories. The most common modifications resulted from changes in immobilization device (n=88, 22.2%), RT care path (n=56, 14.1%), and arm positioning (n=43, 10.8%). On univariate analysis, modifications were associated with RT intent, scan parameters, tumor site, and consultation type. An increased rate modifications was observed for patients had telemedicine consults (n=101, 22.7%) compared to in-person consultations (n=189, 17.9%) (p=0.032). Using logistic regression analysis, there was also a statistically significant relationship between postoperative RT delivery and modification rates (OR: 2.913, 95% CI: 1.014-8.372) (p=0.0126). Overall, only 14 patients (0.9%) needed re-simulation during the entire study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective multi-disciplinary radiation oncology team review prior to simulation identifies actionable change in approximately 19% of procedures, and results in an extremely low rate (<1%) of re-simulation. As departmental processes transition to virtual platforms, thorough attention is needed to identify patients at higher risk of simulation modifications.

The Novel Use of a Commercially Available Video-Conference Platform to Facilitate Multidisciplinary Target Volume Review and Delineation for Skull-Base Radiation Therapy During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

Multidisciplinary involvement in radiation therapy (RT) treatment planning is currently underused. A radiation oncologist sought input for generating target contours from a neuro-radiologist (NR) and otolaryngologist (OL) for 3 patients requiring skull-base RT during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. A Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant virtual meeting between the radiation oncologist, NR, and OL was arranged. Involvement of the OL and NR led to significant changes in the clinical target volume for all patients. Our experience highlights the feasibility of using commercially available video-conference platforms for multidisciplinary target volume delineation for complex RT cases. Further applications include interdisciplinary contour review for RT cases requiring special expertise and joint attending/resident physician contour review for resident education. The video-conference platform technology has demonstrated benefit during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and we believe it will remain an integral component of our field moving forward.

A Comprehensive Analysis of a Prospective Multidisciplinary Peer Review Process Before Radiation Therapy Simulation

PURPOSE

Although peer review in radiation oncology (RO) has been recommended to improve quality of care, an analysis of modifications resulting from an RO multidisciplinary presimulation standardized review process has yet to be empirically demonstrated.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A standardized simulation directive was used for patients undergoing simulation for external beam radiation therapy at a single tertiary care institution. The simulation directives were presented, and all aspects were reviewed by representatives from key RO disciplines. Modifications to the original directives were prospectively captured in a quality improvement registry. Association between key variables and the incidence of modifications were performed using Fisher exact test and t test.

RESULTS

A registry of 500 consecutive simulations for patients undergoing radiation therapy was reviewed. A median of 105 simulations occurred per month. All simulation directives were entered by a physician a median of 3 days before simulation (range, 1-76 days). The treatment intent was curative for 269 patients (53.8%), palliative for 203 patients (40.6%), and benign for 3 patients (0.6%). Twenty-five (5%) patients did not have a treatment intent selected. Based on RO multidisciplinary review, 105 directives (21%) were modified from the original intent, with 29 (5.8%) requiring more than 1 modification. A total of 149 modifications were made and categorized as changes to patient positioning and immobilization (n = 100, 20%), treatment site and care path (n = 34, 6.8%), simulation coordination activities (n = 6, 1.2%), and treatment technique and planning instructions (n = 9, 1.8%). A higher proportion of modifications occurred at the time of multidisciplinary review in patients receiving more complex treatments (intensity modulated radiation therapy/stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy [IMRT/SRS/SBRT] vs 3-dimensional radiation therapy [3DCRT] radiation therapy, 25% vs 16%, P < .025).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the complexity of radiation therapy simulation, standardization of directives with prospective RO multidisciplinary presimulation peer review is critical to optimizing department processes and reducing errors. Approximately 1 in 5 patients benefits from this peer review process, especially patients treated with IMRT/SRS/SBRT.

Development of a Comprehensive, Contour-Based, Peer Review Workflow at a Community Proton Center

Purpose

Quality assurance and continuing quality improvement are integral parts of any radiation oncology practice. With increasingly conformal radiation treatments, it has become critical to focus on every slice of the target contour to ensure adequate tumor coverage and optimal normal tissue sparing. Proton therapy centers open internationally with increasing frequency, and radiation oncologists with varying degrees of subspecialization apply proton therapy in daily practice. Precise treatment with proton therapy allows us to limit toxicity but requires in-depth knowledge of the unique properties of proton beam delivery. To address this need at our proton therapy center, we developed a comprehensive peer review program to help improve the quality of care that we were providing for our patients.

Materials and Methods

We implemented a policy of comprehensive peer review for all patients treated at our community proton facility starting in January 2013. Peer review begins at the time of referral with prospective cases being reviewed for appropriateness for proton therapy at daily rounds. There is then biweekly review of target contouring and treatment plans.

Results

During a 6-month period from June 2013 to November 2013, a total of 223 new patients were treated. Documentation of peer review at chart rounds was completed for 222 of the 223 patients (99.6%). An average of 10.7 cases were reviewed in each biweekly chart rounds session, with a total of 560 case presentations. The average time required for contour review was 145 seconds (±71 seconds) and plan review was 120 seconds (±64 seconds). Modifications were suggested for 21 patients (7.9%) during contour review and for 19 patients (6.4%) during treatment plan review. An average of 4 physicians were present at each session.

Conclusions

We demonstrated that the implementation of a comprehensive, prospective peer review program is feasible in the community setting. This article can serve as a framework for future quality assurance programs.

100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?

Purpose

Peer review has been proposed as a strategy to ensure patient safety and plan quality in radiation oncology. Despite its potential benefits, barriers commonly exist to its optimal implementation in daily clinical routine. Our purpose is to analyze peer-review process at our institution.

Methods and materials

Based on our group peer-review process, we quantified the rate of plan changes, time and resources needed for this process. Prospectively, data on cases presented at our institutional peer-review conference attended by physicians, resident physicians and physicists were collected. Items such as time to present per case, type of patient (adult or pediatric), treatment intent, dose, aimed technique, disease location and receipt of previous radiation were gathered. Cases were then analyzed to determine the rate of major change, minor change and plan rejection after presentation as well as the median time per session.

Results

Over a period of 4 weeks, 148 cases were reviewed. Median of attendants was six physicians, three in-training-physicians and one physicist. Median time per session was 38 (4–72) minutes. 59.5% of cases presented in 1–4 min, 32.4% in 5–9 min and 8.1% in ≥ 10 min. 79.1% of cases were accepted without changes, 11.5% with minor changes, 6% with major changes and 3.4% were rejected with indication of new presentation. Most frequent reason of change was contouring corrections (53.8%) followed by dose or fractionation (26.9%).

Conclusion

Everyday group consensus peer review is an efficient manner to recollect clinical and technical data of cases presented to ensure quality radiation care before initiation of treatment as well as ensuring department quality in a feedback team environment. This model is feasible within the normal operation of every radiation oncology Department.

Strategies for effective physics plan and chart review in radiation therapy: Report of AAPM Task Group 275

BACKGROUND

While the review of radiotherapy treatment plans and charts by a medical physicist is a key component of safe, high-quality care, very few specific recommendations currently exist for this task.

AIMS

The goal of TG-275 is to provide practical, evidence-based recommendations on physics plan and chart review for radiation therapy. While this report is aimed mainly at medical physicists, others may benefit including dosimetrists, radiation therapists, physicians and other professionals interested in quality management.

METHODS

The scope of the report includes photon/electron external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), proton radiotherapy, as well as high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for gynecological applications (currently the highest volume brachytherapy service in most practices). The following review time points are considered: initial review prior to treatment, weekly review, and end-of-treatment review. The Task Group takes a risk-informed approach to developing recommendations. A failure mode and effects analysis was performed to determine the highest-risk aspects of each process. In the case of photon/electron EBRT, a survey of all American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) members was also conducted to determine current practices. A draft of this report was provided to the full AAPM membership for comment through a 3-week open-comment period, and the report was revised in response to these comments.

RESULTS

The highest-risk failure modes included 112 failure modes in photon/electron EBRT initial review, 55 in weekly and end-of-treatment review, 24 for initial review specific to proton therapy, and 48 in HDR brachytherapy. A 103-question survey on current practices was released to all AAPM members who self-reported as working in the radiation oncology field. The response rate was 33%. The survey data and risk data were used to inform recommendations.

DISCUSSION

Tables of recommended checks are presented and recommendations for best practice are discussed. Suggestions to software vendors are also provided.

CONCLUSIONS

TG-275 provides specific recommendations for physics plan and chart review which should enhance the safety and quality of care for patients receiving radiation treatments.

Radiotherapy dose distribution prediction for breast cancer using deformable image registration

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy treatment planning dose prediction can be used to ensure plan quality and guide automatic plan. One of the dose prediction methods is incorporating historical treatment planning data into algorithms to estimate the dose-volume histogram (DVH) of organ for new patients. Although DVH is used extensively in treatment plan quality and radiotherapy prognosis evaluation, three-dimensional dose distribution can describe the radiation effects more explicitly. The purpose of this retrospective study was to predict the dose distribution of breast cancer radiotherapy by means of deformable registration into atlas images with historical treatment planning data that were considered to achieve expert level. The atlas cohort comprised 20 patients with left-sided breast cancer, previously treated by volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy. The registration-based prediction technique was applied to 20 patients outside the atlas cohort. This study evaluated and compared three different approaches: registration to the most similar image from a dataset of individual atlas images (SIM), registration to all images from a database of individual atlas images with the average method (WEI_A), and the weighted method (WEI_F). The dose prediction performance of each strategy was quantified using nine metrics, including the region of interest dose error, 80% and 100% prescription area dice similarity coefficients (DSCs), and γ metrics. A Friedman test and a nonparametric exact Wilcoxon signed rank test were performed to compare the differences among groups. The clinical doses of all cases served as the gold standard.

RESULTS

The WEI_F method could achieve superior dose prediction results to those of WEI_A. WEI_F outperformed SIM in the organ-at-risk mean absolute difference (MAD). When using the WEI_F method, the MAD values for the ipsilateral lung, heart, and whole lung were 197.9 ± 42.9, 166 ± 55.1, 122.3 ± 25.5, and 55.3 ± 42.2 cGy, respectively. Moreover, SIM exhibited superior prediction in the DSC and γ metrics. When using the SIM method, the means of the 80% and 100% prescription area DSCs, 33γ metric, and 55γ metric were 0.85 ± 0.05, 0.84 ± 0.05, 0.64 ± 0.13, and 0.84 ± 0.10, respectively. The plan target volume and spinal cord MAD when using SIM and WEI were 235.6 ± 158.4 cGy versus 227.4 ± 144.0 cGy ([Formula: see text]) and 61.4 ± 44.9 cGy versus 55.3 ± 42.2 cGy ([Formula: see text]), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A predicted dose distribution that approximated the clinical plan could be generated using the methods presented in this study.

Safety First: Developing and Deploying a System to Promote Safety and Quality in Your Clinic

The terms "safety and quality" (SAQ) have become inextricably linked, highly used terms that together encompass a wide range of parameters within medical departments. Safety has always been a priority in radiation oncology; quality assurance has been foundational to our practice. Despite this increased focus and attention on SAQ, the "what" of SAQ remains ill-defined, largely because of the vast number of indicators that fall under this umbrella. Similarly, the "how" of developing and maintaining the highest standards of SAQ is not formulaic and varies based on the unique setting of individual practices. There are several excellent resources available to inform SAQ in radiation oncology, including the American Society for Radiation Oncology's "Safety Is No Accident," which provides an overview of safety and quality standards and resources. This review is intended as a brief summary of key considerations, with the goal of providing a practical framework and context for improving or developing a SAQ program in radiation oncology practices. We believe that the following 10 key elements, drawn from numerous reports that have appeared over the last decade examining this topic, should be considered when conceptualizing a practice-based approach to SAQ: establishing a strong safety culture; establishing a structured program for safety and quality; establishing up-to-date, relevant, and accessible policies and procedures; a system for peer review; systems to assess and reduce risk; an educational program focused on safety and quality; development and review of meaningful quality metrics; utilization of a physics quality control system; well-defined models for staffing, training, and professional development; and finally, validation from external bodies via accreditations and audits. These 10 items are addressed herein.

Implementation of peer-review quality rounds for gynecologic brachytherapy in a high-volume academic center

PURPOSE

While peer review is critical for quality and safety in radiotherapy, there are neither formal guidelines nor format examples for brachytherapy (BT) peer review. We report on a gynecologic BT peer-review method implemented at a high-volume academic center.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We analyzed discussions at bimonthly gynecologic BT peer-review rounds between July and December 2018. Rounds consisted of 2-5 attending physicians with gynecologic BT expertise, 1-2 BT physicists, and trainees. Peer-review targets included clinical case review, contours, implant technique, dose/fractionation, and target/organ-at-risk (OAR) dosimetry. The projected/final target and OAR dosimetry were analyzed.

RESULTS

55 separate implants from 44 patients were reviewed. Implants were mostly reviewed after the first BT fraction (n = 16, 29%) or at another time point during BT (n = 20, 36%). One (2%) implant was presented prospectively. The applicator type and BT technique were reviewed for all implants. Dose/fractionation was evaluated for 46 implants (84%); contours were discussed for 21 (38%). Target and OAR dosimetry were reviewed for 54 (98%) and 28 implants (51%), respectively. Six cases (11%) underwent minor changes to the applicator type to improve target and/or OAR dosimetry. One case (2%) had a major change recommended to the dose/fractionation.

CONCLUSIONS

Gynecologic BT peer review may enhance BT quality by allowing for implant optimization and formal review of challenging cases, ultimately improving medical decision-making and team communication. Peer review should be implemented in centers offering gynecologic BT.

Prospective Peer Review in Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning: Long-Term Results From a Longitudinal Study

PURPOSE

To present the longitudinal results of a prospective peer review evaluation system (PES) before treatment planning.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

All cases undergoing radiation therapy (RT) at high-volume academic institutions were graded in daily prospective multidisciplinary contouring rounds (CRs). The clinical suitability for RT, prescription, contours, and written directives were peer reviewed, compared with departmental care pathways, and recorded in a prospective database. Grades were assigned as follows: A (score 4.0) = no deficiencies; B (3.0) = minor modifications of the planning target volume, organs at risk, written directives, or a prescription/care pathway mismatch; and C (2.0) = incomplete target volume or organ-at-risk contours, unsuitable use or inappropriate planned administration of RT, significant contour modifications, prescription changes, or laterality modifications. Information was pooled to determine pretreatment planning work performance by assigning a grade point average (GPA) for each physician as well as compositely.

RESULTS

A total of 11,843 treatment plans from 7854 patients were reviewed using the PES from September 2013 to May 2018. Twenty-seven point nine percent of cases (n = 3303) required modifications before treatment planning commenced. The overall breakdown of grades was 72.1% As, 21.7% Bs, and 6.2% Cs. The median physician CR GPA was 3.60 (average 3.7) with a range of 3.0 to 3.9. Seventy-five percent of physicians demonstrated improvement of their CR GPA since inception of the program, and all physicians demonstrated a drop in the percentage of cases that were assigned a grade of C.

CONCLUSIONS

The PES can transparently quantify clinical performance in a single metric. The PES was impactful, with 75% of physicians demonstrating improvement in their CR GPA over time. In contrast to traditional chart rounds, this peer review was meaningful when done before planning commenced, a trend that was observed throughout the study period. Twenty-seven point nine percent of all cases required modification before starting treatment planning, and 6.2% of cases required significant remediation.

Impact of Peer Review in the Radiation Treatment Planning Process: Experience of a Tertiary Care University Hospital in Pakistan

PURPOSE

To evaluate and report the frequency of changes in radiation therapy treatment plans after peer review in a simulation review meeting once a week.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between July 1 and August 31, 2016, the radiation plans of 116 patients were discussed in departmental simulation review meetings. All plans were finalized by the primary radiation oncologist before presenting them in the meeting. A team of radiation oncologists reviewed each plan, and their suggestions were documented as no change, major change, minor change, or missing contour. Changes were further classified as changes in clinical target volume, treatment field, or dose. All recommendations were stratified on the basis of treatment intent, site, and technique. Data were analyzed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences and are presented descriptively.

RESULTS

Out of 116 plans, 26 (22.4%) were recommended for changes. Minor changes were suggested in 15 treatment plans (12.9%) and a major change in 10 (8.6%), and only one plan was suggested for missing contour. The frequency of change recommendations was greater in radical radiation plans than in palliative plans (92.3% v 7.7%). The head and neck was the most common treatment site recommended for any changes (42.3%). Most of the changes were recommended in the technique planned with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (50%). Clinical target volume (73.1%) was identified as the most frequent parameter suggested for any change, followed by treatment field (19.2%) and dose (0.08%).

CONCLUSION

Peer review is an important tool that can be used to overcome deficiencies in radiation treatment plans, with a goal of improved and individualized patient care. Our study reports changes in up to a quarter of radiotherapy plans.

Chasing Zero Harm in Radiation Oncology: Using Pre-treatment Peer Review

Purpose: The Joint Commission has encouraged the healthcare industry to become “High Reliability Organizations” by “Chasing Zero Harm” in patient care. In radiation oncology, the time point of quality checks determines whether errors are prevented or only mitigated. Thus, to “chase zero” in radiation oncology, peer review has to be implemented prior to treatment initiation. A multidisciplinary group consensus peer review (GCPR) model is used pre-treatment at our institution and has been successful in our efforts to “chase zero harm” in patient care.

Methods: With the GCPR model, policy-defined complex cases go through a treatment planning conference, which includes physicians, residents, physicists, and dosimetrists. Three major plan aspects are reviewed: target volumes, target and normal tissue dose coverage, and dose distributions. During the review, any team member can ask questions and afterwards a group consensus is taken regarding plan approval.

Results: The GCPR model has been implemented through a commitment to peer review and creative conference scheduling. Automated analysis software is used to depict color-coded results for department approved target coverage and dose constraints. About 8% of plans required re-planning while about 23% required minor changes. The mean time for review of each plan was 8 min.

Conclusions: Catching errors prior to treatment is the only way to “chase zero” in radiation oncology. Various types of errors may exist in treatment plans and our GCPR model succeeds in preventing many errors of all shapes and sizes in target definition, dose prescriptions, and treatment plans from ever reaching the patients.

The Impact of Transitioning to Prospective Contouring and Planning Rounds as Peer Review

Purpose

Our peer-review program previously consisted of weekly chart rounds performed before the end of the first week of treatment. In order to perform peer review before the start of treatment when possible, we implemented daily prospective contouring and planning rounds (CPR).

Methods and materials

At the time of computed tomography simulation, patients were categorized by the treating physician into 5 treatment groups based on urgency and complexity (ie, standard, urgent, palliative nonemergent, emergent, and special procedures). A scoring system was developed to record the outcome of case presentations, and the results of the CPR case presentations were compared with the time period 2.5 years before CPR implementation, for which peer review was performed retrospectively.

Results

CPR was implemented on October 1, 2015, and a total of 4759 patients presented for care through May 31, 2018. The majority were in the standard care path (n = 3154; 66.3%). Among the remainder of the charts, 358 (7.5%), 430 (9.0%), and 179 (3.8%) cases were in the urgent, nonemergent palliative, and emergent care paths, respectively. The remaining patients were in the special procedures group, representing brachytherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery. A total of 125 patients (2.6%) required major changes and were re-presented after the suggested modifications, 102 patients (2.1%) had minor recommendations that did not require a repeat presentation, and 247 cases (5.2%) had minor documentation-related recommendations that did not require editing of the contours. In the 2.5 years before the implementation, records of a total of 1623 patients were reviewed, and only 9 patients (0.6%) had minor recommendation for change. The remainder was noted as complete agreement.

Conclusions

Contouring and planning rounds were successfully implemented at our clinic. Pretreatment and, most often, preplanning review of contours and directives allows for a more detailed review and changes to be made early on in the treatment planning process. When compared with historical case presentations, the CPR method made our peer review more thorough and improved standardization.

Impact of Peer Review on Use of Hypofractionated Regimens for Early-Stage Breast Cancer for Patients at a Tertiary Care Academic Medical Center and Its Community-Based Affiliates

PURPOSE

Data have demonstrated that hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) and conventionally fractionated radiation therapy regimens are equivalent with respect to outcomes. Efforts to increase HFRT use have had mixed success. We implemented a prospective peer review chart rounds integrating all practice sites and reviewed the use of HFRT in an attempt to identify potential predictors of use.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients treated with whole-breast radiation therapy within our cancer care network from January 2016 to June 2017 were evaluated. Radiation courses with a dose per fraction of greater than 2 Gy were considered HFRT, whereas those with a dose per fraction of less than or equal to 2 Gy were considered as conventionally fractionated radiation therapy. Patient, provider, and tumor characteristics were categorized by use of HFRT and compared between groups using a χ² test or two-tailed t test.

RESULTS

A total of 349 consecutive patients were identified. All 120 patients treated at the main academic site received HFRT. There was significant variation in use of HFRT among community-based providers (28% to 100%; P < .001). There was increased use of HFRT after implementation of institution-wide prospective peer review (66% v 81% before and after implementation, respectively; P = .001). Age, tumor grade, chemotherapy receipt, surgeon type (academic v community), and treatment after implementation of peer review all correlated with HFRT use. On multivariable analysis, treatment after implementation of peer review ( P < .001) remained a significant predictor of HFRT use, as did age ( P = .005), tumor grade ( P = .013), and surgeon type ( P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Significant variation persists in the use of HFRT among providers. Increased awareness and oversight through prospective peer review may be useful in improving compliance to HFRT. Expanding these efforts to include education of referring surgeons may be helpful.

Radiation therapy quality assurance in head and neck radiotherapy - Moving forward

Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) radiation oncologists (ROs) enjoy the immense pleasure of curing patients, working within a large multidisciplinary team to effectively deliver curative intent treatment whilst also aiming to minimise late treatment toxicity. Secondary analyses of large-scale HNC clinical trials have shown the critical impact of the quality of radiotherapy plans, where protocol non-compliant plans have yielded inferior survival rates approximating 20%. The peer review process in routine day-to-day HNC practice shows that even in major academic centers a significant proportion of RT plans may require changes to the radiotherapy planning volume. Optimising the therapeutic ratio in HNC has been dramatically facilitated by intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), but that technology has also increased the complexity of HNC radiotherapy treatment and high-volume centers with experienced clinicians may be best placed to deliver this most accurately. International consensus guidelines to standardise or benchmark best practice with respect to the RT-QA process in HNC are needed. The aim of this paper is to highlight the importance of the RT-QA process in the HNC treatment process and to make some recommendations for its inclusion in both clinical trials and routine clinical practice.

Analysis of a real time group consensus peer review process in radiation oncology: an evaluation of effectiveness and feasibility

Background

Peer review systems within radiation oncology are important to ensure quality radiation care. Several individualized methods for radiation oncology peer review have been described. However, despite the importance of peer review in radiation oncology barriers may exist to its effective implementation in practice. The purpose of this study was to quantify the rate of plan changes based on our group peer review process as well as the quantify amount of time and resources needed for this process.

Methods

Data on cases presented in our institutional group consensus peer review conference were prospectively collected. Cases were then retrospectively analyzed to determine the rate of major change (plan rejection) and any change in plans after presentation as well as the median time of presentation. Univariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with major change and any change.

Results

There were 73 cases reviewed over a period of 11 weeks. The rate of major change was 8.2% and the rate of any change was 23.3%. The majority of plans (53.4%) were presented in 6–10 min. Overall, the mean time of presentation was 8 min. On univariable logistic regression, volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were less likely to undergo a plan change but otherwise there were no factors significantly associated with major plan change or any type of change.

Conclusion

Group consensus peer review allows for a large amount of informative clinical and technical data to be presented per case prior to the initiation of radiation treatment in a thorough yet efficient manner to ensure plan quality and patient safety.

Impact of Multi-Institutional Prospective Peer Review on Target and Organ-at-Risk Delineation in Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

Peer review is an essential component of quality assurance programs in radiation oncology. The purpose of this work was to assess whether peer reviewers recommend expansion or reduction of planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) in prospective multidisciplinary daily contour rounds.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The peer group evaluated the appropriateness of PTVs and OARs for each case according to evidence-based departmental directives. We reviewed 7645 cases that presented between September 2013 and March 2017. We isolated recommendations for PTV/OAR modification and classified each as expansion, reduction, both, or indeterminate. Recommendations were analyzed by technique, site, and physician experience.

RESULTS

Eight junior and 7 senior radiation oncologists were included. PTV or OAR modifications were recommended for 750 of 7645 prescriptions (9.7%). The peer group recommended PTV modifications for 534 prescriptions (7.0%): There were 309 expansions (57.9%), 115 reductions (21.5%), 15 both (2.8%), and 95 indeterminate (17.8%). Reasons for PTV expansions included increased nodal coverage and inadequate margins as a result of motion. The peer group recommended OAR modifications for 216 prescriptions (2.8%): There were 102 expansions (47.2%), 23 reductions (10.6%), 2 both (0.9%), and 89 indeterminate (41.2%). Reasons for OAR expansions included missing critical structures and inadequate extent as per departmental standardization. Head and neck represented the largest percentage of PTV recommendations (28.8%). Intensity modulated radiation therapy plans received the most PTV and OAR recommendations (66.8% and 74.5%, respectively). The recommendation rate for senior and junior faculty was 43% and 28%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer review resulted in recommendations for PTV or OAR change for approximately 10% of cases. Expansions of PTV were recommended >2.5 times more often than reductions and >3 times more often than OAR expansions. This general trend was identified for treatment technique, site, and physician experience. Prospective peer review could yield systematically larger volumes, which could affect multicenter clinical trials.

Radiation oncology resident training in patient safety and quality improvement: a national survey of residency program directors

Background

Physicians and physicists are expected to contribute to patient safety and quality improvement (QI) in Radiation Oncology (RO), but prior studies suggest that training for this may be inadequate. RO and medical physics (MP) program directors (PDs) were surveyed to better understand the current patient safety/QI training in their residency programs.

Methods

PDs were surveyed via email in January 2017. Survey questions inquired about current training, curriculum elements, and barriers to development and/or improvement of safety and QI training.

Results

Eighty-nine RO PDs and 84 MP PDs were surveyed, and 21 RO PDs (28%) and 31 MP PDs (37%) responded. Both RO and MP PDs had favorable opinions of current safety and QI training, and used a range of resources for program development, especially safety and QI publications. Various curriculum elements were reported. Curriculum elements used by RO and MP PDs were similar, except RO were more likely than MP PDs to implement morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference (72% vs. 45%, p < 0.05). RO and MP PDs similarly cited various barriers, but RO PDs were more likely to cite lack of experience than MP PDs (40% vs. 16%, p < 0.05). PDs responded similarly independent of whether they reported using a departmental incident learning system (ILS) or not.

Conclusions

PDs view patient safety/QI as an important part of resident education. Most PDs agreed that residents are adequately exposed to patient safety/QI and prepared to meet the patient safety/QI expectations of clinical practice. This conflicts with other independent studies that indicate a majority of residents feel their patient safety/QI training is inadequate and lacks formal exposure to QI tools.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-018-1128-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Lung cancer specialists' opinions on treatment for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A multidisciplinary survey

PURPOSE

The current standard of care for surgically eligible stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is surgical resection, but emerging data suggest that stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is potentially as effective as surgery. However, specialist views of the current evidence about SBRT and how they would incorporate a randomized controlled trial (RCT) into practice is unclear. We sought to understand specialist opinions about evidence regarding treatment of stage I NSCLC and how this translates into practice and clinical trial implementation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We used a 28-item, web-based survey that invited all participating providers from the American Society for Radiation Oncology, American Thoracic Society Thoracic Oncology Assembly, and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer to share opinions regarding practice beliefs, treatment of stage I NSCLC, and a clinical trial scenario.

RESULTS

A total of 959 surveys were completed; 64% were from radiation oncologists (ROs) and 49% were from outside the United States. The majority of ROs (80%) reported that current evidence indicates that SBRT has the same or a better benefit compared with surgery for surgically eligible patients with stage I NSCLC; 28% of non-radiation oncologists (NROs) indicated the same (P < .01). Almost all ROs (94%), compared with 62% of NROs, would permit surgically eligible patients to enroll in an RCT of SBRT versus surgery (P < .01). Most ROs (82%) and NROs (87%) believed that changing practice in thoracic surgery would be somewhat difficult, very difficult, or impossible (P = .066) even if an RCT showed better survival with SBRT.

CONCLUSIONS

NROs believe that SBRT is much less effective than surgery, contrary to ROs, who believe that they are similar. Most would support an RCT, but NROs would do so less. Changes in surgical practice may be challenging even if an RCT shows better mortality and quality of life with SBRT. These results are helpful in the creation and dissemination of RCTs that are designed to understand this question.

Group consensus peer review in radiation oncology: commitment to quality

Background

Peer review, especially prospective peer review, has been supported by professional organizations as an important element in optimal Radiation Oncology practice based on its demonstration of efficacy at detecting and preventing errors prior to patient treatment. Implementation of peer review is not without barriers, but solutions do exist to mitigate or eliminate some of those barriers.

Methods

Peer review practice at our institution involves three key elements: new patient conference, treatment planning conference, and chart rounds. The treatment planning conference is an adaptation of the group consensus peer review model from radiology which utilizes a group of peers reviewing each treatment plan prior to implementation. The peer group in radiation oncology includes Radiation Oncologists, Physician Residents, Medical Physicists, Dosimetrists, and Therapists. Thus, technical and clinical aspects of each plan are evaluated simultaneously.

Results

Though peer review is held in high regard in Radiation Oncology, many barriers commonly exist preventing optimal implementation such as time intensiveness, repetition, and distraction from clinic time with patients. Through the use of automated review tools and commitment by individuals and administration in regards to staffing, scheduling, and responsibilities, these barriers have been mitigated to implement this Group Consensus Peer Review model into a Radiation Oncology Clinic.

Conclusion

A Group Consensus Peer Review model has been implemented with strategies to address common barriers to effective and efficient peer review.

A patient safety education program in a medical physics residency

Education in patient safety and quality of care is a requirement for radiation oncology residency programs according to accrediting agencies. However, recent surveys indicate that most programs lack a formal program to support this learning. The aim of this report was to address this gap and share experiences with a structured educational program on quality and safety designed specifically for medical physics therapy residencies. Five key topic areas were identified, drawn from published recommendations on safety and quality. A didactic component was developed, which includes an extensive reading list supported by a series of lectures. This was coupled with practice-based learning which includes one project, for example, failure modes and effect analysis exercise, and also continued participation in the departmental incident learning system including a root-cause analysis exercise. Performance was evaluated through quizzes, presentations, and reports. Over the period of 2014-2016, five medical physics residents successfully completed the program. Evaluations indicated that the residents had a positive experience. In addition to educating physics residents this program may be adapted for medical physics graduate programs or certificate programs, radiation oncology residencies, or as a self-directed educational project for practicing physicists. Future directions might include a system that coordinates between medical training centers such as a resident exchange program.

Safety Considerations in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

Although many error pathways are common to both stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and conventional radiation therapy, SBRT presents a special set of challenges including short treatment courses and high-doses, an enhanced reliance on imaging, technical challenges associated with commissioning, special resource requirements for staff and training, and workflow differences. Emerging data also suggest that errors occur at a higher rate in SBRT treatments. Furthermore, when errors do occur they often have a greater effect on SBRT treatments. Given these challenges, it is important to understand and employ systematic approaches to ensure the quality and safety of SBRT treatment. Here, we outline the pathways by which error can occur in SBRT, illustrated through a series of case studies, and highlight 9 specific well-established tools to either reduce error or minimize its effect to the patient or both.

Review of the clinical benefits and implementation of peer review of treatment plans in undergraduate medical dosimetry and radiation therapy training

Purpose

Peer review of treatment plans has been used to improve planning consistency, decrease the need for replanning and improve quality of care through the safe delivery of high-quality radiotherapy plans. This narrative review summarises the clinical benefits and addresses the implementation of peer review of treatment plans in undergraduate medical dosimetry and radiation therapy training.

Discussion

There are encouraging results of peer review for advanced treatment planning techniques such as Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy techniques in clinical practice. Peer review can be used as a tool to improve students’ knowledge of organ-at-risk contouring, treatment plan critique and quality assurance. These desirable treatment planning skills can be easily transferred to clinical settings. Moreover, there are several potential pedagogical benefits such as improvement in student engagement, better communication skills and provision of synchronous and asynchronous feedback that can positively impact student success and future employment. However, there are several challenges in facilitating its implementation in university settings.

Conclusion

Embedding skills in peer review of treatment plans at undergraduate teaching level can be a powerful tool to impart clinical treatment planning knowledge. This narrative review provides a basis on which to develop an exploratory study of structured peer review activities in a training environment.

Perceptions and practices regarding women's vaginal health following radiation therapy: A survey of radiation oncologists practicing in the United States

PURPOSE

Vaginal stenosis (VS) is a recognized complication of pelvic and vaginal radiation therapy (RT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A 26-item survey assessing the signs/symptoms, risk factors, diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and impact of VS on women's sexual health was distributed to radiation oncologists. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Chi-square tests examined differences in categorical responses.

RESULTS

A total of 233 (10.5%) participants completed the entire survey. Twelve percent, 21%, and 68% report treating gynecologic (GYN) tumors only, non-GYN pelvic tumors only, or both, respectively. Regarding risk factors, 78% believed that VS can be caused by pelvic RT alone, 91% by vaginal brachytherapy alone, and 98% by combined pelvic RT and vaginal brachytherapy. Approximately one-half of respondents felt that being postmenopausal and having a hysterectomy before radiation therapy were risk factors for VS, whereas the other half felt that these were not risk factors. All respondents agreed that VS is a clinical diagnosis. Respondents indicated that VS symptoms include dyspareunia, vaginal pain, dryness, and/or bleeding (100%, 90%, 85%, and 72%, respectively); 65% indicated all 4. The most commonly recommended treatment for VS is vaginal dilator use. Radiation oncologists who treat GYN-only versus non-GYN cancers were more likely to perform a vaginal examination, to distribute written instructions regarding vaginal dilator use (P = .002), to have vaginal bleeding reported after RT (P = .001), and to refer patients to a sexual counselor (P = .007). Most providers (73%) expressed willingness to participate in prospective research on the diagnosis and treatment of VS.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first large-scale survey of radiation oncologists' perceptions and practices regarding VS. There is agreement among providers regarding the signs/symptoms of VS and strategies for its prevention/treatment using vaginal dilators. Further prospective and observational research is needed. This survey shows a willingness on the part of providers to take part in prospective research regarding the diagnosis, impact, and treatment of VS on women's sexual health.

Assessing the Quality of a Radiation Oncology Case-Based, Peer-Review Program in an Integrated Academic and Community Cancer Center Network

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.

A pan-Canadian survey of peer review practices 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.

ReCAP: Improving the Quality of Radiation Treatment for Patients in Ontario: Increasing Peer Review Activities on a Jurisdictional Level Using a Change Management Approach

QUESTION ASKED:

What is the impact of the Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) strategy (designed with guidance from a change management framework) to accelerate the use of peer-review processes in radiation oncology (ie, review of a radiation oncologist’s proposed treatment plan by a second radiation oncologist with or without additional multidisciplinary input) across all of its 14 cancer treatment centers?

SUMMARY ANSWER:

By following a number of key change management principles for organizational transformation, the proportion of radical-intent radiation therapy courses peer reviewed province-wide increased from 43.5% (April 2013) to 68.0% (March 2015), with some centers reaching over 95%.

METHODS:

The initiative design was guided by the Kotter eight-step process for organizational transformation, including the creation of a multidisciplinary leadership team, site visits to individual centers, the development of education and implementation processes (done in collaboration with each center), and the creation of new performance metrics for central reporting. Monitoring of these metrics enabled the leadership team to track the percentage of radiation therapy courses peer reviewed and the timing of peer review (before 25% treatment visits complete, after 25% treatment visits complete). Performance targets for the quality measures were arrived at by consensus that included engagement of all center radiation treatment program leaders.

BIAS, CONFOUNDING FACTOR(S), DRAWBACKS:

Peer review has been shown to increase quality of care. However, it requires that resources be invested, including the time and effort of radiation oncologists, and the programmatic work required to organize, execute, and document peer-review activities. There is currently no way of confirming the quality of peer-review activities.

REAL-LIFE IMPLICATIONS:

A change management framework can be useful for planning and achieving substantial increases in peer-review activities on a jurisdictional basis. Ongoing work will capitalize on facilitators of peer review and on addressing barriers to its application that were identified as part of the initiative. Guidance for peer-review activities specific to common clinical cases is required and is under development. The principles of peer review could be extended to other oncological disciplines with the goal of improving individual patient care and overall program quality. [Figure: see text]