Abstract
BackgroundPeer review, especially prospective peer review, has been supported by professional organizations as an important element in optimal Radiation Oncology practice based on its demonstration of efficacy at detecting and preventing errors prior to patient treatment. Implementation of peer review is not without barriers, but solutions do exist to mitigate or eliminate some of those barriers.MethodsPeer review practice at our institution involves three key elements: new patient conference, treatment planning conference, and chart rounds. The treatment planning conference is an adaptation of the group consensus peer review model from radiology which utilizes a group of peers reviewing each treatment plan prior to implementation. The peer group in radiation oncology includes Radiation Oncologists, Physician Residents, Medical Physicists, Dosimetrists, and Therapists. Thus, technical and clinical aspects of each plan are evaluated simultaneously.ResultsThough peer review is held in high regard in Radiation Oncology, many barriers commonly exist preventing optimal implementation such as time intensiveness, repetition, and distraction from clinic time with patients. Through the use of automated review tools and commitment by individuals and administration in regards to staffing, scheduling, and responsibilities, these barriers have been mitigated to implement this Group Consensus Peer Review model into a Radiation Oncology Clinic.ConclusionA Group Consensus Peer Review model has been implemented with strategies to address common barriers to effective and efficient peer review.
Highlights
Peer review, especially prospective peer review, has been supported by professional organizations as an important element in optimal Radiation Oncology practice based on its demonstration of efficacy at detecting and preventing errors prior to patient treatment
Peer review, and prospective in nature, has been demonstrated as an important quality mechanism in the field of Radiation Oncology and is championed by various professional organizations such as American College of Radiology (ACR) and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) based on consistent efficacy at prevention of minor and major errors [1,2,3,4]
The “Peer Review by Group Consensus” model is unique in the Radiation Oncology clinic, and several logistical challenges, such as scheduling, communication, and workflow, had to be overcome in order to implement this model of peer review
Summary
Especially prospective peer review, has been supported by professional organizations as an important element in optimal Radiation Oncology practice based on its demonstration of efficacy at detecting and preventing errors prior to patient treatment. Prospective in nature, has been demonstrated as an important quality mechanism in the field of Radiation Oncology and is championed by various professional organizations such as ACR and ASTRO based on consistent efficacy at prevention of minor and major errors [1,2,3,4]. Without quality assurance and control, treatment-related errors have the potential for causing serious injury to the patient or subpar treatment results that could have been avoided with appropriate systems in place. The inherent complexities of different sites of disease (i.e. when evaluating head and neck plans versus breast plans) can contribute to the adaptations necessary for the peer review process [5,6,7,8,9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
