Cargando…

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. MET...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Martin-Garcia, E., Celada-Álvarez, F., Pérez-Calatayud, M. J., Rodriguez-Pla, M., Prato-Carreño, O., Farga-Albiol, D., Pons-Llanas, O., Roldán-Ortega, S., Collado-Ballesteros, E., Martinez-Arcelus, F. J., Bernisz-Diaz, Y., Macias, V. A., Chimeno, J., Gimeno-Olmos, J., Lliso, F., Carmona, V., Ruiz, J. C., Pérez-Calatayud, J., Tormo-Micó, A., Conde-Moreno, A. J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7299249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32557395
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12094-020-02394-8
_version_ 1783547348422492160
author Martin-Garcia, E.
Celada-Álvarez, F.
Pérez-Calatayud, M. J.
Rodriguez-Pla, M.
Prato-Carreño, O.
Farga-Albiol, D.
Pons-Llanas, O.
Roldán-Ortega, S.
Collado-Ballesteros, E.
Martinez-Arcelus, F. J.
Bernisz-Diaz, Y.
Macias, V. A.
Chimeno, J.
Gimeno-Olmos, J.
Lliso, F.
Carmona, V.
Ruiz, J. C.
Pérez-Calatayud, J.
Tormo-Micó, A.
Conde-Moreno, A. J.
author_facet Martin-Garcia, E.
Celada-Álvarez, F.
Pérez-Calatayud, M. J.
Rodriguez-Pla, M.
Prato-Carreño, O.
Farga-Albiol, D.
Pons-Llanas, O.
Roldán-Ortega, S.
Collado-Ballesteros, E.
Martinez-Arcelus, F. J.
Bernisz-Diaz, Y.
Macias, V. A.
Chimeno, J.
Gimeno-Olmos, J.
Lliso, F.
Carmona, V.
Ruiz, J. C.
Pérez-Calatayud, J.
Tormo-Micó, A.
Conde-Moreno, A. J.
author_sort Martin-Garcia, E.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7299249
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72992492020-06-18 100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible? Martin-Garcia, E. Celada-Álvarez, F. Pérez-Calatayud, M. J. Rodriguez-Pla, M. Prato-Carreño, O. Farga-Albiol, D. Pons-Llanas, O. Roldán-Ortega, S. Collado-Ballesteros, E. Martinez-Arcelus, F. J. Bernisz-Diaz, Y. Macias, V. A. Chimeno, J. Gimeno-Olmos, J. Lliso, F. Carmona, V. Ruiz, J. C. Pérez-Calatayud, J. Tormo-Micó, A. Conde-Moreno, A. J. Clin Transl Oncol Research Article 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. Springer International Publishing 2020-06-15 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7299249/ /pubmed/32557395 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12094-020-02394-8 Text en © Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO) 2020 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Research Article
Martin-Garcia, E.
Celada-Álvarez, F.
Pérez-Calatayud, M. J.
Rodriguez-Pla, M.
Prato-Carreño, O.
Farga-Albiol, D.
Pons-Llanas, O.
Roldán-Ortega, S.
Collado-Ballesteros, E.
Martinez-Arcelus, F. J.
Bernisz-Diaz, Y.
Macias, V. A.
Chimeno, J.
Gimeno-Olmos, J.
Lliso, F.
Carmona, V.
Ruiz, J. C.
Pérez-Calatayud, J.
Tormo-Micó, A.
Conde-Moreno, A. J.
100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?
title 100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?
title_full 100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?
title_fullStr 100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?
title_full_unstemmed 100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?
title_short 100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?
title_sort 100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7299249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32557395
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12094-020-02394-8
work_keys_str_mv AT martingarciae 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT celadaalvarezf 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT perezcalatayudmj 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT rodriguezplam 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT pratocarrenoo 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT fargaalbiold 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT ponsllanaso 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT roldanortegas 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT colladoballesterose 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT martinezarcelusfj 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT berniszdiazy 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT maciasva 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT chimenoj 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT gimenoolmosj 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT llisof 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT carmonav 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT ruizjc 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT perezcalatayudj 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT tormomicoa 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible
AT condemorenoaj 100peerreviewinradiationoncologyisitfeasible