Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • Crispen Chamunyonga (a1) and Pete Bridge (a2)

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.

Copyright

Corresponding author

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

References

Hide All
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.
2. Grol, R. Quality improvement by peer review in primary care: a practical guide. Qual Health Care 1994; 3: 147152.
3. Marks, L B, Jackson, M, Xie, L et al. The challenge of maximising safety in radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol 2011; 1: 214.
4. Briggs, L. Peer review for advanced practice nurses. AACN Clin Issue 2005; 16 (1): 312.
5. George, V, Haag-Heittman, B. Nursing peer review: the managers’ role. J Nurs Manage 2011; 19 (2): 254259.
6. IAEA. Applying Radiation Safety Standards in Radiotherapy. Safety Report. Series 38. Vienna: IAEA, 2006.
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.
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.
9. Gusic, M, Hageman, H, Zenni, E. Peer review: a tool to enhance clinical teaching. Clin Teach 2013; 10: 287290.
10. La Lopa, J M. A Scholarly Approach to a Peer Review of Teaching. J Culin Sci Tec 2012; 10 (4): 352364.
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.
12. Hansen, S D. Inviting observation. Prin Leadership 2010; 11 (2): 5256.
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.
14. Lee, C J. Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 2013; 64 (1): 217.
15. Chamberlain, J M, D'Artrey, M, Rowe, D. Peer observation of teaching: a decoupled process. Act Learn High Educ 2011; 12 (3): 189201.
16. Schoenfeld, A H. How We Think: A Theory of Goal-Oriented Decision Making and Its Educational Applications. New York: Routledge, 2011.
17. Moran, J M, Dempsey, M, Eisbruch, A et al. Safety considerations for IMRT. Pract Radiat Oncol 2011; 1 (1): 190195.
18. Pawlicki, T, Mundt, A J. Quality in radiation oncology. Med Phys 2007; 34 (5): 15291534.
19. Odle, T G, Rosier, N. The Critical Role of the Radiation Therapist. Albuquerque: ASRT, 2012.
20. ICRP 86. Prevention of accidents to patients undergoing radiation therapy. Ann ICRP 2000; 30 (3): 5455.
21. Hendee, W R, Herman, M G. Improving patient safety in radiation oncology. Med Phys 2011; 38 (1): 7882.
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.
23. Newnham, J. To reflect or not? Reflective practice in radiation therapy. J Radiother Pract 1999; 1 (3): 109116.

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

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