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
. 2024 Dec;36(12):809-816.
doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2024.09.006. Epub 2024 Sep 20.

"If You're Talking, I Think You're Muted": Follow-up Analysis of Weekly Peer Review Discussion and Plan Changes After Transitioning From Virtual to In-Person Format

R T Hughes  1 , J J Prasad  2 , N B Razavian  3 , J D Ververs  3 , A C Snavely  4 , C L Nightingale  5 , K E Weaver  5 , M D Chan  3 , M K Farris  3
Affiliations

"If You're Talking, I Think You're Muted": Follow-up Analysis of Weekly Peer Review Discussion and Plan Changes After Transitioning From Virtual to In-Person Format

R T Hughes et al. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2024 Dec.

Abstract

Aims: During the COVID-19 public health emergency, we previously identified decreased rates of radiotherapy (RT) peer review (PR) discussion and plan changes in virtual versus in-person PR conferences. To expand on these findings, we continued to prospectively collect data on all PR conferences from 2021 to 2023 and performed a follow-up analysis before and after the transition back to in-person PR.

Materials and methods: A prospectively maintained database of weekly PR cases was queried for consecutive cases reviewed before and after the transition from virtual to in-person conferences. Rates of PR discussion and change recommendations were summarized and compared between the virtual and in-person groups. A survey was developed and administered to assess participants' perceived levels of engagement, opinions on optimal PR format, and preferences for future meetings before and 3 months after the transition back to in-person PR.

Results: In total, 2,103 RT plans were reviewed: 1,590 virtually and 513 after the transition back to in-person. There was no difference in faculty attendance between groups. The proportion of cases with PR discussion increased from virtual (9.8%) to in-person (25.5%) format (p < 0.001). In the virtual group, 8.1% of cases had 1 topic and 1.7% had 2+ topics discussed. This increased to 15.8% and 9.7% during in-person PR, respectively (p < 0.001). The rate of change recommendation also increased from 1.5% (virtual) to 3.3% (in-person, p = 0.016). Among cases with at least 1 topic discussed, there was no difference in changes. Survey-reported distraction significantly decreased from virtual to in-person PR (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Upon returning to in-person PR conferences, peer discussion and plan change recommendations significantly increased and returned to pre-pandemic levels, and participants' perceived levels of distraction were reduced. In an increasingly virtual world, additional efforts to develop best practices that maximize PR discussion and minimize distraction outside virtual conferences are warranted.

Keywords: Chart rounds; peer review; quality assurance; radiation oncology; telehealth; virtual medicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Michael Farris reports financial support was provided by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Ryan Hughes reports financial support was provided by the Radiation Oncology Institute. Ryan Hughes reports equipment, drugs, or supplies and statistical analysis were provided by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

Fig 1.
Fig 1.
Distribution of peer review case discussion topics identified in the original publication (hashed bars) and the current study (solid bars) [2]. For each discussion topic, the set of four bars represents summary data of 5495 cases discussed in weekly peer review conferences between April 2019 and June 2023. The data from the “Original In-person” and “Virtual Era #1” groups have been adapted from our prior study immediately preceding the current cohort [2].
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Marks LB, Adams RD, Pawlicki T, Blumberg AL, Hoopes D, Brundage MD, et al. Enhancing the role of case-oriented peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology: Executive summary. Practical Radiation Oncology 2013;3:149–156. 10.1016/j.prro.2012.11.010. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hughes RT, Tye KE, Ververs JD, O’Connell NS, Helis CA, Steber CR, et al. Virtual radiation oncology peer review is associated with decreased engagement and limited case discussion: Analysis of a prospective database before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022. Jul 15;113(4):727–731. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.04.026. Epub 2022 Apr 27. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. End of the Federal COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) Declaration, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/end-of-phe.html 2023. [Accessed 25 July 2023].
    1. Mohamedbhai H, Fernando S, Ubhi H, Chana S, Visavadia B. Advent of the virtual multidisciplinary team meeting: do remote meetings work? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021;59:1248–1252. 10.1016/j.bjoms.2021.05.015. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Farris JC, Razavian NB, Farris MK, Ververs JD, Frizzell BA, Leyrer CM, et al. Head and neck radiotherapy quality assurance conference for dedicated review of delineated targets and organs at risk: results of a prospective study. J Radiother Pract 2023;22:e60.10.1017/s1460396922000309. Epub 2022 Nov 4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed