Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-s65px Total loading time: 0.212 Render date: 2021-03-07T08:09:58.701Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Radiation therapist peer review: raising the bar on quality and safety in radiation oncology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2014

Crispen Chamunyonga
Affiliation:
Radiation Therapy Department, The Cancer Centre, Nassau, Bahamas
Pete Bridge
Affiliation:
School of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland 4001, Australia
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Purpose

An emerging developmental tool to help radiation therapists achieve better outcomes is ‘peer review’. This review of the current literature summarises the challenges and benefits of peer review in both individual and departmental practice.

Discussion

There is compelling evidence supporting peer review implementation at both individual and department level in many professions. Implementing peer review requires that radiation therapists and other radiation oncology professionals embrace a culture that supports safety. Peer review can identify trends and barriers associated with quality radiotherapy and share best practice or recommend changes accordingly. Support for peer review must come from pre-registration educational systems as well as clinical managers. Continuing professional development in the workplace is nurtured by peer review of radiotherapy practice and an aptitude for this should be viewed as important to the profession as technical and clinical skills.

Conclusion

It is clear that peer review has the potential to facilitate reflective practice, improve staff motivation and help foster a culture of quality and safety in radiation oncology. To drive the issues of quality and safety a step further radiation therapists need to accept the challenge of adopting peer review methods in day-to-day practice.

Type
Literature Reviews
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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, T et 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. Grol, R. Quality improvement by peer review in primary care: a practical guide. Qual Health Care 1994; 3: 147152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Marks, L B, Jackson, M, Xie, L et al. The challenge of maximising safety in radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol 2011; 1: 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Briggs, L. Peer review for advanced practice nurses. AACN Clin Issue 2005; 16 (1): 312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. George, V, Haag-Heittman, B. Nursing peer review: the managers’ role. J Nurs Manage 2011; 19 (2): 254259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. IAEA. Applying Radiation Safety Standards in Radiotherapy. Safety Report. Series 38. Vienna: IAEA, 2006.Google Scholar
7. Halvorsen, P H, Das, I J, Fraser, M et al. AAPM task Group103 report on peer review in clinical radiation oncology physics. J Appl Clin Medical Phys 2005; 6 (4): 5064.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. McIntyre, N, Popper, K. The critical attitude in medicine, the need for a new ethics. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983; 287: 19191923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Gusic, M, Hageman, H, Zenni, E. Peer review: a tool to enhance clinical teaching. Clin Teach 2013; 10: 287290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. La Lopa, J M. A Scholarly Approach to a Peer Review of Teaching. J Culin Sci Tec 2012; 10 (4): 352364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Lawrence, Y R, Whiton, M A, Symon, Z et 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
12. Hansen, S D. Inviting observation. Prin Leadership 2010; 11 (2): 5256.Google Scholar
13. Bennett, P N, Parker, S, Smigiel, H. Paired peer review of university classroom teaching in a school of nursing and midwifery. Nurs Educ Today 2012; 32 (6): 665668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Lee, C J. Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 2013; 64 (1): 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Chamberlain, J M, D'Artrey, M, Rowe, D. Peer observation of teaching: a decoupled process. Act Learn High Educ 2011; 12 (3): 189201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Schoenfeld, A H. How We Think: A Theory of Goal-Oriented Decision Making and Its Educational Applications. New York: Routledge, 2011.Google Scholar
17. Moran, J M, Dempsey, M, Eisbruch, A et al. Safety considerations for IMRT. Pract Radiat Oncol 2011; 1 (1): 190195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Pawlicki, T, Mundt, A J. Quality in radiation oncology. Med Phys 2007; 34 (5): 15291534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Odle, T G, Rosier, N. The Critical Role of the Radiation Therapist. Albuquerque: ASRT, 2012.Google Scholar
20. ICRP 86. Prevention of accidents to patients undergoing radiation therapy. Ann ICRP 2000; 30 (3): 5455.Google ScholarPubMed
21. Hendee, W R, Herman, M G. Improving patient safety in radiation oncology. Med Phys 2011; 38 (1): 7882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Zietman, A L, Palta, J R, Steinberg, M L et al. Safety is no accident: a framework for quality radiation oncology and care. Albuquerque: ASRT, 2012.Google Scholar
23. Newnham, J. To reflect or not? Reflective practice in radiation therapy. J Radiother Pract 1999; 1 (3): 109116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

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: 13
Total number of PDF views: 81 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 7th 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.

Radiation therapist peer review: raising the bar on quality and safety in radiation oncology
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.

Radiation therapist peer review: raising the bar on quality and safety in radiation oncology
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.

Radiation therapist peer review: raising the bar on quality and safety in radiation oncology
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *