A peer review process as part of the implementation of clinical pathways in radiation oncology: Does it improve compliance?

Clinical practice guideline adherence in oncology: A qualitative study of insights from clinicians in Australia

BACKGROUND

The burden of cancer is large in Australia, and rates of cancer Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) adherence is suboptimal across various cancers.

METHODS

The objective of this study is to characterise clinician-perceived barriers and facilitators to cancer CPG adherence in Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect data from 33 oncology-focused clinicians (surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists and haematologists). Clinicians were recruited in 2019 and 2020 through purposive and snowball sampling from 7 hospitals across Sydney, Australia, and interviewed either face-to-face in hospitals or by phone. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim, and qualitative thematic analysis of the interview data was undertaken. Human research ethics committee approval and governance approval was granted (2019/ETH11722, #52019568810127).

RESULTS

Five broad themes and subthemes of key barriers and facilitators to cancer treatment CPG adherence were identified: Theme 1: CPG content; Theme 2: Individual clinician and patient factors; Theme 3: Access to, awareness of and availability of CPGs; Theme 4: Organisational and cultural factors; and Theme 5: Development and implementation factors. The most frequently reported barriers to adherence were CPGs not catering for patient complexities, being slow to be updated, patient treatment preferences, geographical challenges for patients who travel large distances to access cancer services and limited funding of CPG recommended drugs. The most frequently reported facilitators to adherence were easy accessibility, peer review, multidisciplinary engagement or MDT attendance, and transparent CPG development by trusted, multidisciplinary experts. CPGs provide a reassuring framework for clinicians to check their treatment plans against. Clinicians want cancer CPGs to be frequently updated utilising a wiki-like process, and easily accessible online via a comprehensive database, coordinated by a well-trusted development body.

CONCLUSION

Future implementation strategies of cancer CPGs in Australia should be tailored to consider these context-specific barriers and facilitators, taking into account both the content of CPGs and the communication of that content. The establishment of a centralised, comprehensive, online database, with living wiki-style cancer CPGs, coordinated by a well-funded development body, along with incorporation of recommendations into point-of-care decision support would potentially address many of the issues identified.

Prospective study of artificial intelligence-based decision support to improve head and neck radiotherapy plan quality

•

H&N radiation treatment plan directives are typically not patient-specific.

•

Patient-specific directives may facilitate the best-achievable dose distribution.

•

Use of an AI-guided tool significantly improved achieved dose for nearly all OARs.

Background and purpose

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for head and neck cancer is a complex process. While the lowest achievable dose for each individual organ-at-risk (OAR) is unknown a priori, artificial intelligence (AI) holds promise as a tool to accurately estimate the expected dose distribution for OARs. We prospectively investigated the benefits of incorporating an AI-based decision support tool (DST) into the clinical workflow to improve OAR sparing.

Materials and methods

The DST dose prediction model was based on 276 institutional VMAT plans. Under an IRB-approved prospective trial, the physician first generated a custom OAR directive for 50 consecutive patients (physician directive, PD). The DST then estimated OAR doses (AI directive, AD). For each OAR, the treating physician used the lower directive to form a hybrid directive (HD). The final plan metrics were compared to each directive. A dose difference of 3 Gray (Gy) was considered clinically significant.

Results

Compared to the AD and PD, the HD reduced OAR dose objectives by more than 3 Gy in 22% to 75% of cases, depending on OAR. The resulting clinical plan typically met these lower constraints and achieved mean dose reductions between 4.3 and 16 Gy over the PD, and 5.6 to 9.1 Gy over the AD alone. Dose metrics achieved using the HD were significantly better than institutional historical plans for most OARs and NRG constraints for all OARs.

Conclusions

The DST facilitated a significantly improved treatment directive across all OARs for this generalized H&N patient cohort, with neither the AD nor PD alone sufficient to optimally direct planning.

Integrating Academic and Community Cancer Care and Research through Multidisciplinary Oncology Pathways for Value-Based Care: A Review and the City of Hope Experience

As the US transitions from volume- to value-based cancer care, many cancer centers and community groups have joined to share resources to deliver measurable, high-quality cancer care and clinical research with the associated high patient satisfaction, provider satisfaction, and practice health at optimal costs that are the hallmarks of value-based care. Multidisciplinary oncology care pathways are essential components of value-based care and their payment metrics. Oncology pathways are evidence-based, standardized but personalizable care plans to guide cancer care. Pathways have been developed and studied for the major medical, surgical, radiation, and supportive oncology disciplines to support decision-making, streamline care, and optimize outcomes. Implementing multidisciplinary oncology pathways can facilitate comprehensive care plans for each cancer patient throughout their cancer journey and across large multisite delivery systems. Outcomes from the delivered pathway-based care can then be evaluated against individual and population benchmarks. The complexity of adoption, implementation, and assessment of multidisciplinary oncology pathways, however, presents many challenges. We review the development and components of value-based cancer care and detail City of Hope’s (COH) academic and community-team-based approaches for implementing multidisciplinary pathways. We also describe supportive components with available results towards enterprise-wide value-based care delivery.

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.

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.

Ongoing and Focused Provider Performance Evaluations in Emergency Medicine: Current Practices and Modified Delphi to Guide Future Practice

The Joint Commission requires ongoing and focused provider performance evaluations (OPPEs/FPPEs). The authors aim to describe current approaches in emergency medicine (EM) and identify consensus-based best practice recommendations. An online survey was distributed to leaders in EM to gain insight into current practices. A modified Delphi approach was then used to develop consensus to recommend best practice. A variety of strategies are currently in use for OPPE/FPPE. “Peer reviewed cases with opportunity for improvement” was identified as a preferred metric for OPPE. Although the preference was for use of peer review in OPPE, a consistent and standard adoption of robust internal care review processes is needed to establish expected norms. National benchmarking is not available currently. This was a limited survey of self-identified leaders, and there is an opportunity for additional engagement of leaders in EM to identify a unified approach that appropriately relates to patient outcomes.

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 a clinical pathway tool on appropriate palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases

PURPOSE

Clinical pathways increase compliance with treatment guidelines, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. Guidelines recommend single fraction radiation therapy (SFRT) for palliation of uncomplicated bone metastases, but implementation is variable. We examined the effects of a pathway tool on SFRT rates in an academic radiation oncology practice.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Using published literature, clinical guidelines, and expert input, we designed a clinical pathway for bone metastases radiation therapy displayed on a Web-based electronic interface. In March 2016, the pathway launched on a palliative radiation service at the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center main campus and at affiliated community sites. Providers were surveyed pre- and postimplementation to assess expectations and elicit feedback. Rates of pathway utilization, compliance with SFRT recommendations, and reasons for noncompliance were assessed.

RESULTS

The final pathway includes 20 endpoints and several validated prognostic scoring systems. It was used in 38% of 723 bone metastases radiation prescriptions, with appropriate SFRT rates rising from 18% before implementation to 48% after launch (P < .01). Major reasons for rejecting recommendations included disagreement with life expectancy prognostication and patient convenience. The pathway increased physicians' confidence regarding compliance with treatment guidelines and made it easier to find well-supported treatment recommendations. Workflow disruptions and the inability to handle nuanced situations emerged as limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrates the utility of clinical pathway decision support for bone metastases radiation in complex academic settings. Next steps include increasing the pathway's ease of use, refining the pathway's prognostic abilities, and measuring cost savings related to the pathway.

Standardization of radiation therapy dose for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer through changes to a lung cancer clinical pathway in a large, integrated comprehensive cancer center network

PURPOSE

The results of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0617, which randomized patients with stages IIIA/IIIB non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to definitive chemoradiation therapy to 60 Gy versus 74 Gy, demonstrated a detrimental survival impact with high-dose radiation therapy. We evaluated the impact of changes to a provider-driven clinical pathway (CP) guiding management of NSCLC on practice throughout our cancer center network.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In 2001, we implemented a CP for management of stage IIIA/IIIB NSCLC with definitive chemoradiation therapy. In 2013, the CP for NSCLC was amended (amendment 1) to allow a dose range of 60 to 74 Gy. The CP was amended (amendment 2) in January 2016 to specify a dose range of 60 to 70 Gy. Higher doses were considered off-pathway and subject to peer review. Data from decisions entered from 2012 to 2016 were obtained.

RESULTS

From 2012 until publication of RTOG 0617 in February 2015, the median prescription dose was 66 Gy delivered in 1.8 to 2.1 Gy fractions. Doses ≤66 Gy were prescribed for 52% of patients. From February 2015 to September 2016, the median prescription dose was 60 Gy, and 91% of prescription doses were ≤66 Gy. After amendment 2, 99% of decisions were ≤66 Gy. Dose ≤66 Gy was associated with treatment following publication of 0617 (P < .001) and treatment after amendment 2 (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, treatment after amendment 2 was associated with dose ≤66 Gy (odds ratio, 9.9; 95% confidence interval, 5.2-19.0; P < .001). The percentage of lung receiving 20 Gy was lower following publication of 0617 (P < .001). There was no difference in the percentage of heart receiving 40 Gy.

CONCLUSIONS

CPs eliminate variations in practice that lead to inferior outcomes. Recognizing that our CP for definitive treatment of patients with locally advanced NSCLC allowed heterogeneous dose prescriptions, we modified the CP based on the publication of RTOG 0617. We found that the CP was a tool to ensure patients receive evidence-based care across a large cancer center network.