Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Jul-Sep;3(3):149-156.
doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2012.11.010. Epub 2013 Mar 16.

Enhancing the role of case-oriented peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology: Executive summary

Affiliations

Enhancing the role of case-oriented peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology: Executive summary

Lawrence B Marks et al. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2013 Jul-Sep.

Abstract

This report is part of a series of white papers commissioned for the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Board of Directors as part of ASTRO's Target Safely Campaign, focusing on the role of peer review as an important component of a broad safety/quality assurance (QA) program. Peer review is one of the most effective means for assuring the quality of qualitative, and potentially controversial, patient-specific decisions in radiation oncology. This report summarizes many of the areas throughout radiation therapy that may benefit from the application of peer review. Each radiation oncology facility should evaluate the issues raised and develop improved ways to apply the concept of peer review to its individual process and workflow. This might consist of a daily multidisciplinary (eg, physicians, dosimetrists, physicists, therapists) meeting to review patients being considered for, or undergoing planning for, radiation therapy (eg, intention to treat and target delineation), as well as meetings to review patients already under treatment (eg, adequacy of image guidance). This report is intended to clarify and broaden the understanding of radiation oncology professionals regarding the meaning, roles, benefits, and targets for peer review as a routine quality assurance tool. It is hoped that this work will be a catalyst for further investigation, development, and study of the efficacy of peer review techniques and how these efforts can help improve the safety and quality of our treatments.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A quality management program must address medical and qualitative steps (left side) as well as technical and quantifiable process-related steps (right side) to implement the medical directive. The left side is the focus of this report.

References

    1. Hulick P.R., Ascoli F.A. Quality assurance in radiation oncology. J Am Coll Radiol. 2005;2:613–616. - PubMed
    1. Brundage M.D., Dixon P.F., Mackillop W.J. A real-time audit of radiation therapy in a regional cancer center. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:115–124. - PubMed
    1. Boxer M., Forstner D., Kneebone A. Impact of a real-time peer review audit on patient management in a radiation oncology department. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2009;53:405–411. - PubMed
    1. Shakespeare T.P., Mukherjee R.K., Lu J.J., Lee K.M., Back M.F. Evaluation of an audit with feedback continuing medical education program for radiation oncologists. J Cancer Educ. 2005;20:216–221. - PubMed
    1. Jamtvedt G., Young J.M., Kristoffersen D.T., O'Brien M.A., Oxman A.D. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006:CD000259. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources