Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:10:44.152Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of an inter-centre, web-based radiation oncology peer-review case conference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2015

Chamunyonga Crispen ,
Osama M. Kellini  and
Milind Kumar
Chamunyonga Crispen*
Affiliation:
The Cancer Centre, Nassau, Bahamas
Osama M. Kellini
Affiliation:
The Cancer Centre, Nassau, Bahamas
Milind Kumar
Affiliation:
Southern Medical Clinic, Radiation Oncology Department, Trinidad and Tobago
*
Correspondence to: Crispen Chamunyonga, The Cancer Centre Bahamas, 72 Collins Avenue, Nassau, Bahamas. Tel: +1242 5029610. Fax: +1242 5029619. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose

Peer-review programmes in radiation oncology are used to facilitate the process and evaluation of clinical decision-making. However, web-based peer-review methods are still uncommon. This study analysed an inter-centre, web-based peer-review case conference as a method of facilitating the decision-making process in radiation oncology.

Methodology

A benchmark form was designed based on the American Society for Radiation Oncology targets for radiation oncology peer review. This was used for evaluating the contents of the peer-review case presentations on 40 cases, selected from three participating radiation oncology centres. A scoring system was used for comparison of data, and a survey was conducted to analyse the experiences of radiation oncology professionals who attended the web-based peer-review meetings in order to identify priorities for improvement.

Results

The mean scores for the evaluations were 82·7, 84·5, 86·3 and 87·3% for cervical, prostate, breast and head and neck presentations, respectively. The survey showed that radiation oncology professionals were confident about the role of web-based peer-reviews in facilitating sharing of good practice, stimulating professionalism and promoting professional growth. The participants were satisfied with the quality of the audio and visual aspects of the web-based meeting.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that simple inter-centre web-based peer-review case conferences are a feasible technique for peer review in radiation oncology. Limitations such as data security and confidentiality can be overcome by the use of appropriate structure and technology. To drive the issues of quality and safety a step further, small radiotherapy departments may need to consider web-based peer-review case conference as part of their routine quality assurance practices.

Keywords

decision-makingpeer reviewquality and safetyradiation oncology
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 135 - 142
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Marks, L B, Adams, R D, Pawlicki, Tet al. Enhancing the role of case orientated peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol 2013; 3 (3): 149–156.Google Scholar
2.Marks, L B, Jackson, M, Xie, Let al. The challenge of maximising safety in radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol 2011; 1: 2–14.Google Scholar
3.Lawrence, Y R, Whiton, M A, Symon, Zet al. Quality assurance peer review chart rounds in 2011: a survey of academic institutions in the United States. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 84: 590–595.Google Scholar
4.Pawlicki, T, Mundt, A J. Quality in radiation oncology. Med Phys 2007; 34 (5): 1529–1534.Google Scholar
5.Chartrounds.com. 2014. https://www.chartrounds.com/Default.aspx. Accessed on 24 January 2014.Google Scholar
6.Grol, R. Quality improvement by peer review in primary care: a practical guide. Qual Health Care 1994; 3: 147–152.Google Scholar
7.Bissonnette, J P, Balter, P A, Dong, Let al. Quality assurance for image-guided radiation therapy utilizing CT-based technologies: a report of the AAPM TG-179. Med Phys 2012; 39 (4): 1946–1963.Google Scholar
8.Kleine, B. Benchmarking for continuous performance improvement: tactics for success. Total Qual Environ Manag 1994; 283: 95.Google Scholar
9.Amina, E T, Levif, M, Michael, P. Benchmarking: a method for continous quality improvement in health. Healthc Policy 2012; 7 (4): 101–119.Google Scholar
10.Briggs, L. Peer review for advanced practice nurses. AACN Clin Issue 2005; 16 (1): 3–12.Google Scholar
11.Citrix Online Web Conferencing Tools: Security White Paper. 2010. http://l1.osdimg.com/online/dam/pdf/en/resources/wp/Citrix-Online-Web-Conferencing-Security.pdf. Accessed on 29 March 2014.Google Scholar
12.Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932; 140: 55.Google Scholar
13.Palta, J, Frouhar, V A, Dempsy, J F. Web-based submission, archive, and review of radiotherapy data for clinical quality assurance: a new paradigm. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 57 (5): 1427–1436.Google Scholar
14.Michael, B, Sophie, F, McGowan, Tet al. A survey of radiation treatment planning peer-review activities in provincial radiation oncology programmer: current practice and future direction. BMJ Open 2013; 3: 5–6.Google Scholar
15.George, V, Haag-Heittman, B. Nursing peer review: the managers’ role. J Nurs Manag 2011; 19 (2): 254–259.Google Scholar
16.La Lopa, J M. A scholarly approach to a peer review of teaching. J Culin Sci Tec 2012; 10 (4): 352–364.Google Scholar
17.Chamunyonga, C, Bridge, P. Radiation therapist peer review: raising the bar on quality and safety in radiation Oncology. J Radiother Pract 2014; 13 (4): 484–489.Google Scholar
18.Brooks, S, Olsen, P, Rieger-Kligys, S, Mooney, L. Peer review: an approach to performance evaluation in a professional practice model. Crit Care Nurs Q 1995; 18 (3): 36–47.Google Scholar
19.Gusic, M, Hageman, H, Zenni, E. Peer review: a tool to enhance clinical teaching. Clin Teach 2013; 10: 287–290.Google Scholar
20.Hansen, S D. Inviting observation. Prin Leadership 2010; 11 (2): 52–56.Google Scholar
21.Gritzalis, D. A baseline security policy for distributed healthcare information systems. Comput Security 1997; 16 (8): 709–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar