A radiation oncology peer review program for community hospitals.

Abstract

200 Background: Certified Members within the MD Anderson Cancer Network must perform prospective internal review of radiation oncology cases treated at their institution. Since 2009, several Network sites have been systematically added to a quality oversight program. As part of this process, a sample of the internally peer reviewed cases are assessed by radiation oncology Faculty from MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) who are considered disease site experts. Methods: An electronic tool was used by Network sites to enter clinical treatment information on patients undergoing peer review. This case log was used to select a sample size of not less than 10% of each physician’s case load for an in-depth quarterly evaluation by our Faculty. Quality and appropriateness metrics included review of the technical components of the radiation treatment (RT) plan and multidisciplinary management.. RT was scored as being concordant/non-concordant with MDACC or national guidelines. Non-concordant cases were further reviewed for appropriateness given the individualized case. Feedback was then provided by Faculty to the treating radiation oncologists quarterly, to discuss recommendations and practice pattern modifications. Results: To date, 6 of our 13 Network sites are participating in this peer review process with others being phased in. In 2013, we selected 104 of 719 cases entered into our database by the first four sites. 78% (81) of cases were concordant with guidelines, while 22% (23) were non-concordant. Of the non-concordant cases, 23% were deemed individually appropriate but the remainders (17 of 104) were not appropriate. Concordance in the most frequent disease sites ranged from 80 to 89%. In the less frequent disease sites concordance was lower, ranging from 50 to 73%. Conclusions: The highly technical aspects of radiation treatment, the frequent need to integrate a multidisciplinary approach, and the reality that low volume disease sites will need to be increasingly treated in the community accentuate the need for enhanced oversight and more effective consultation with high volume, expert providers. Our study suggests that an integrated approach to peer review can improve the quality and value of cancer therapy in the community setting.