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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |