Article Text

Download PDFPDF

A survey of radiation treatment planning peer-review activities in a provincial radiation oncology programme: current practice and future directions
  1. Michael Brundage1,2,
  2. Sophie Foxcroft2,3,
  3. Tom McGowan4,5,
  4. Eric Gutierrez2,
  5. Michael Sharpe2,3,5,
  6. Padraig Warde2,3,5
  1. 1Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's Cancer Research Institute, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2Radiation Treatment Program, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  4. 4Department of Radiation Oncology, Credit Valley Hospital, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
  5. 5Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Michael Brundage; michael.brundage{at}krcc.on.ca

Abstract

Objectives To describe current patterns of practice of radiation oncology peer review within a provincial cancer system, identifying barriers and facilitators to its use with the ultimate aim of process improvement.

Design A survey of radiation oncology programmes at provincial cancer centres.

Setting All cancer centres within the province of Ontario, Canada (n=14). These are community-based outpatient facilities overseen by Cancer Care Ontario, the provincial cancer agency.

Participants A delegate from each radiation oncology programme filled out a single survey based on input from their multidisciplinary team.

Outcome measures Rated importance of peer review; current utilisation; format of the peer-review process; organisation and timing; case attributes; outcomes of the peer-review process and perceived barriers and facilitators to expanding peer-review processes.

Results 14 (100%) centres responded. All rated the importance of peer review as at least 8/10 (10=extremely important). Detection of medical error and improvement of planning processes were the highest rated perceived benefits of peer review (each median 9/10). Six centres (43%) reviewed at least 50% of curative cases; four of these centres (29%) conducted peer review in more than 80% of cases treated with curative intent. Fewer than 20% of cases treated with palliative intent were reviewed in most centres. Five centres (36%) reported usually conducting peer review prior to the initiation of treatment. Five centres (36%) recorded the outcomes of peer review on the medical record. Thirteen centres (93%) planned to expand peer-review activities; a critical mass of radiation oncologists was the most important limiting factor (median 6/10).

Conclusions Radiation oncology peer-review practices can vary even within a cancer system with provincial oversight. The application of guidelines and standards for peer-review processes, and monitoring of implementation and outcomes, will require effective knowledge translation activities.

  • Radiotherapy

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.