Cargando…

Improving Communication of Peer-Review Conference Outcomes: A Practical Experience

PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to describe the design and implementation of a more robust workflow for communicating outcomes from a peer-review chart rounds conference. We also provide information regarding cycle times, plan revisions, and other key metrics that we have observed since initial im...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jones, Joseph A., Soike, Michael H., Boggs, D. Hunter, Fiveash, John B., Cardan, Rex A., Bonner, James A., McDonald, Andrew M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10139862/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37124317
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2023.101218
_version_ 1785033039949070336
author Jones, Joseph A.
Soike, Michael H.
Boggs, D. Hunter
Fiveash, John B.
Cardan, Rex A.
Bonner, James A.
McDonald, Andrew M.
author_facet Jones, Joseph A.
Soike, Michael H.
Boggs, D. Hunter
Fiveash, John B.
Cardan, Rex A.
Bonner, James A.
McDonald, Andrew M.
author_sort Jones, Joseph A.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to describe the design and implementation of a more robust workflow for communicating outcomes from a peer-review chart rounds conference. We also provide information regarding cycle times, plan revisions, and other key metrics that we have observed since initial implementation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multidisciplinary team of stakeholders including physicians, physicists, and dosimetrists developed a revised peer-review workflow that addressed key needs to improve the prior process. Consensus terminology was developed to reduce ambiguity regarding the priority of peer-review outcomes and to clarify expectations of the treating physician in response to peer-review outcomes. A custom workflow software tool was developed to facilitate both upstream and downstream processes from the chart rounds conference. The peer-review outcomes of the chart rounds conference and resulting plan changes for the first 18 months of implementation were summarized. RESULTS: In the first 18 months after implementation of the revised processes, 2294 plans were reviewed, and feedback priority levels assigned. Across all cases with feedback, the median time for the treating attending physician to acknowledge conference comments was 1 day and was within 7 calendar days for 89.1% of cases. Conference feedback was acknowledged within 1 day for 74 of 115 (64.3%) cases with level 2 comments and for 18 of 21 (85.7%) cases with level 3 comments (P = .054). Contours were modified in 13 of 116 (11%) cases receiving level 2 feedback and 10 of 21 (48%) cases receiving level 3 feedback (P < .001). The treatment plan was revised in 18 of 116 (16%) cases receiving level 2 feedback and 13 of 21 (61%) cases receiving level 3 feedback (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We successfully implemented a workflow to improve upstream and downstream processes for a chart rounds conference. Standardizing how peer-review outcomes were communicated and recording physician responses allow for improved ability to monitor conference activities.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10139862
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101398622023-04-29 Improving Communication of Peer-Review Conference Outcomes: A Practical Experience Jones, Joseph A. Soike, Michael H. Boggs, D. Hunter Fiveash, John B. Cardan, Rex A. Bonner, James A. McDonald, Andrew M. Adv Radiat Oncol Scientific Article PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to describe the design and implementation of a more robust workflow for communicating outcomes from a peer-review chart rounds conference. We also provide information regarding cycle times, plan revisions, and other key metrics that we have observed since initial implementation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multidisciplinary team of stakeholders including physicians, physicists, and dosimetrists developed a revised peer-review workflow that addressed key needs to improve the prior process. Consensus terminology was developed to reduce ambiguity regarding the priority of peer-review outcomes and to clarify expectations of the treating physician in response to peer-review outcomes. A custom workflow software tool was developed to facilitate both upstream and downstream processes from the chart rounds conference. The peer-review outcomes of the chart rounds conference and resulting plan changes for the first 18 months of implementation were summarized. RESULTS: In the first 18 months after implementation of the revised processes, 2294 plans were reviewed, and feedback priority levels assigned. Across all cases with feedback, the median time for the treating attending physician to acknowledge conference comments was 1 day and was within 7 calendar days for 89.1% of cases. Conference feedback was acknowledged within 1 day for 74 of 115 (64.3%) cases with level 2 comments and for 18 of 21 (85.7%) cases with level 3 comments (P = .054). Contours were modified in 13 of 116 (11%) cases receiving level 2 feedback and 10 of 21 (48%) cases receiving level 3 feedback (P < .001). The treatment plan was revised in 18 of 116 (16%) cases receiving level 2 feedback and 13 of 21 (61%) cases receiving level 3 feedback (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We successfully implemented a workflow to improve upstream and downstream processes for a chart rounds conference. Standardizing how peer-review outcomes were communicated and recording physician responses allow for improved ability to monitor conference activities. Elsevier 2023-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC10139862/ /pubmed/37124317 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2023.101218 Text en © 2023 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Scientific Article
Jones, Joseph A.
Soike, Michael H.
Boggs, D. Hunter
Fiveash, John B.
Cardan, Rex A.
Bonner, James A.
McDonald, Andrew M.
Improving Communication of Peer-Review Conference Outcomes: A Practical Experience
title Improving Communication of Peer-Review Conference Outcomes: A Practical Experience
title_full Improving Communication of Peer-Review Conference Outcomes: A Practical Experience
title_fullStr Improving Communication of Peer-Review Conference Outcomes: A Practical Experience
title_full_unstemmed Improving Communication of Peer-Review Conference Outcomes: A Practical Experience
title_short Improving Communication of Peer-Review Conference Outcomes: A Practical Experience
title_sort improving communication of peer-review conference outcomes: a practical experience
topic Scientific Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10139862/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37124317
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2023.101218
work_keys_str_mv AT jonesjosepha improvingcommunicationofpeerreviewconferenceoutcomesapracticalexperience
AT soikemichaelh improvingcommunicationofpeerreviewconferenceoutcomesapracticalexperience
AT boggsdhunter improvingcommunicationofpeerreviewconferenceoutcomesapracticalexperience
AT fiveashjohnb improvingcommunicationofpeerreviewconferenceoutcomesapracticalexperience
AT cardanrexa improvingcommunicationofpeerreviewconferenceoutcomesapracticalexperience
AT bonnerjamesa improvingcommunicationofpeerreviewconferenceoutcomesapracticalexperience
AT mcdonaldandrewm improvingcommunicationofpeerreviewconferenceoutcomesapracticalexperience