Group consensus peer review in radiation oncology: commitment to quality

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Radiation oncology (London, England) England), 2018-03, Vol.13 (1), p.55-55, Article 55
Main Authors: Duggar, W Neil, Bhandari, Rahul, Yang, Chunli Claus, Vijayakumar, Srinivasan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Consensus
Humans
Methodology
Peer Review - methods
Quality Assurance, Health Care - standards
Radiation Oncology - standards
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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. 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. 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. A Group Consensus Peer Review model has been implemented with strategies to address common barriers to effective and efficient peer review.
ISSN:1748-717X
1748-717X
DOI:10.1186/s13014-018-1006-1