Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

  • Chamunyonga Crispen (a1), Osama M. Kellini (a1) and Milind Kumar (a2)



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.


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.


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.


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.


Corresponding author

Correspondence to: Crispen Chamunyonga, The Cancer Centre Bahamas, 72 Collins Avenue, Nassau, Bahamas. Tel: +1242 5029610. Fax: +1242 5029619. E-mail:


Hide All
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.
2.Marks, L B, Jackson, M, Xie, Let al. The challenge of maximising safety in radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol 2011; 1: 214.
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.
4.Pawlicki, T, Mundt, A J. Quality in radiation oncology. Med Phys 2007; 34 (5): 15291534. 2014. Accessed on 24 January 2014.
6.Grol, R. Quality improvement by peer review in primary care: a practical guide. Qual Health Care 1994; 3: 147152.
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.
8.Kleine, B. Benchmarking for continuous performance improvement: tactics for success. Total Qual Environ Manag 1994; 283: 95.
9.Amina, E T, Levif, M, Michael, P. Benchmarking: a method for continous quality improvement in health. Healthc Policy 2012; 7 (4): 101119.
10.Briggs, L. Peer review for advanced practice nurses. AACN Clin Issue 2005; 16 (1): 312.
11.Citrix Online Web Conferencing Tools: Security White Paper. 2010. Accessed on 29 March 2014.
12.Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932; 140: 55.
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.
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.
15.George, V, Haag-Heittman, B. Nursing peer review: the managers’ role. J Nurs Manag 2011; 19 (2): 254259.
16.La Lopa, J M. A scholarly approach to a peer review of teaching. J Culin Sci Tec 2012; 10 (4): 352364.
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.
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.
19.Gusic, M, Hageman, H, Zenni, E. Peer review: a tool to enhance clinical teaching. Clin Teach 2013; 10: 287290.
20.Hansen, S D. Inviting observation. Prin Leadership 2010; 11 (2): 5256.
21.Gritzalis, D. A baseline security policy for distributed healthcare information systems. Comput Security 1997; 16 (8): 709719.


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

  • Chamunyonga Crispen (a1), Osama M. Kellini (a1) and Milind Kumar (a2)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed