Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-7x8lp Total loading time: 0.343 Render date: 2021-03-01T14:43:44.989Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2015

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
Corresponding
E-mail address:

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.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

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): 149156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Marks, L B, Jackson, M, Xie, Let al. The challenge of maximising safety in radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol 2011; 1: 214.CrossRefGoogle 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: 590595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Pawlicki, T, Mundt, A J. Quality in radiation oncology. Med Phys 2007; 34 (5): 15291534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 147152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 19461963.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 101119.Google Scholar
10.Briggs, L. Peer review for advanced practice nurses. AACN Clin Issue 2005; 16 (1): 312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 14271436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 56.Google Scholar
15.George, V, Haag-Heittman, B. Nursing peer review: the managers’ role. J Nurs Manag 2011; 19 (2): 254259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.La Lopa, J M. A scholarly approach to a peer review of teaching. J Culin Sci Tec 2012; 10 (4): 352364.CrossRefGoogle 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): 484489.CrossRefGoogle 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): 3647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Gusic, M, Hageman, H, Zenni, E. Peer review: a tool to enhance clinical teaching. Clin Teach 2013; 10: 287290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Hansen, S D. Inviting observation. Prin Leadership 2010; 11 (2): 5256.Google Scholar
21.Gritzalis, D. A baseline security policy for distributed healthcare information systems. Comput Security 1997; 16 (8): 709719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 33 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 1st March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

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

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

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

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *