MO-D-I-618-02: Survey of Quality Performance Status in Radiation Oncology Departments

Abstract

Purpose: To survey quality assurance performance in both hospital-based and free-standing radiation oncology departments. Method and Materials: Consisted of an online survey of 15 questions that was also mailed to 425 radiation oncology departments, covering topics ranging from peer review and issues, departmental processes and equipment, state reportable events, TG-40 recommendations and accredidation status. Results: We received 56 responses for a 13% response rate. Of these, 73% were from hospital-based and 27% from free-standing clinics. 80% reported conducting physician peer-review meetings, and discussed issues such as high risk/low volume procedures, unplanned treatment breaks (48%), mortality (41%), and reaccurences in adjacent and previously irradiated fields (31%). 93% reported knowing what is a state-reportable event, and 83% had conducted a root-cause analysis for a state-reportable event. 85% of the responders reported using Continues Quality Improvement (CQI) methods within the department and 50% cross-departmentally in an effort to improve the treatment processes. Tracking of quality indicators included patient satisfaction (95%), treatment misadministration (80%), physics check prior to 3rd treatment (73%), number of simulations and starts (48%), pateint wait time (36%), chart consistancy (30%), port film repeat rate (30%), machine overides (29%) and block re-cuts (7%). However, only 41% reported being accredidited by either the ACR or ACRO. In addition, 50% of respondants reported knowing the AAPM TG-40 guidelines, and only 32% of respondants tracked compliance with TG-40 recommendations. Conclusion: The results represent a small sample size so must be interpreted cautiously. Overall responses indicate a lack of consistancy between departments in managing quality assurance issues. Responses also indicate a disregard for AAPM TG-40 reccomendations, and an overall lack of interest in accredidation.