Resumen de 100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?
E. Martin Garcia, Francisco Javier Celada Álvarez, José Pérez Calatayud, M. Rodriguez Pla, O. Prato Carreño, D. Farga Albiol, O. Pons Llanas, S. Roldán, E. Collado, F. J. Martinez Arcelus, Y. Bernisz Diaz, Víctor Macías Hernández, José María Chimeno Hernández, José Gimeno Olmos, F. Lliso Valverde, V. Carmona Meseguer, J. C. Ruiz, Alejandro Tormo Micó, Antonio José Conde Moreno
Purpose Peer review has been proposed as a strategy to ensure patient safety and plan quality in radiation oncology. Despite its potential benefits, barriers commonly exist to its optimal implementation in daily clinical routine. Our purpose is to analyze peer-review process at our institution.
Methods and materials Based on our group peer-review process, we quantified the rate of plan changes, time and resources needed for this process. Prospectively, data on cases presented at our institutional peer-review conference attended by physicians, resident physicians and physicists were collected. Items such as time to present per case, type of patient (adult or pediatric), treatment intent, dose, aimed technique, disease location and receipt of previous radiation were gathered. Cases were then analyzed to determine the rate of major change, minor change and plan rejection after presentation as well as the median time per session.
Results Over a period of 4 weeks, 148 cases were reviewed. Median of attendants was six physicians, three in-training-physicians and one physicist. Median time per session was 38 (4–72) minutes. 59.5% of cases presented in 1–4 min, 32.4% in 5–9 min and 8.1% in ≥ 10 min. 79.1% of cases were accepted without changes, 11.5% with minor changes, 6% with major changes and 3.4% were rejected with indication of new presentation. Most frequent reason of change was contouring corrections (53.8%) followed by dose or fractionation (26.9%).
Conclusion Everyday group consensus peer review is an efficient manner to recollect clinical and technical data of cases presented to ensure quality radiation care before initiation of treatment as well as ensuring department quality in a feedback team environment. This model is feasible within the normal operation of every radiation oncology Department.
