Analysis of an inter-centre, web-based radiation oncology peer-review case conference

Abstract

PurposePeer-review programmes in radiation oncology are used to facilitate the process and evaluation of clinical decision-making. However, web-based peer-review methods are still uncommon. This study analysed an inter-centre, web-based peer-review case conference as a method of facilitating the decision-making process in radiation oncology.MethodologyA benchmark form was designed based on the American Society for Radiation Oncology targets for radiation oncology peer review. This was used for evaluating the contents of the peer-review case presentations on 40 cases, selected from three participating radiation oncology centres. A scoring system was used for comparison of data, and a survey was conducted to analyse the experiences of radiation oncology professionals who attended the web-based peer-review meetings in order to identify priorities for improvement.ResultsThe mean scores for the evaluations were 82·7, 84·5, 86·3 and 87·3% for cervical, prostate, breast and head and neck presentations, respectively. The survey showed that radiation oncology professionals were confident about the role of web-based peer-reviews in facilitating sharing of good practice, stimulating professionalism and promoting professional growth. The participants were satisfied with the quality of the audio and visual aspects of the web-based meeting.ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that simple inter-centre web-based peer-review case conferences are a feasible technique for peer review in radiation oncology. Limitations such as data security and confidentiality can be overcome by the use of appropriate structure and technology. To drive the issues of quality and safety a step further, small radiotherapy departments may need to consider web-based peer-review case conference as part of their routine quality assurance practices.

Benefits and drawbacks of videoconferencing for collaborating multidisciplinary teams in regional oncology networks: a scoping review

“…Six types of team collaboration in oncology care were distinguished (table 1): (1) Expert MDTM-national: provides expertise and experience on rare tumours nationally (17 studies) 18-34 ; (2) Expert MDTM-International: provides international expertise and experience on rare tumours (5 studies) [35][36][37][38][39] ; (3) Expert Consultation: physicians caring for complex patients seeking a consultation with experts (11 studies) [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] ; (4) Consultation Specialist-Nurse: nurses consulting with palliative treatment specialists in specialised palliative care units or hospices (4 studies) [51][52][53][54] ; (5) MDT-Equal: involving more or less equal MDTs that use each other for a 'fresh look' to optimise the diagnostic and treatment plans for complex cases (5 studies) [55][56][57][58][59] ; and (6) MDTM-Collaborate: MDTs collaborating to form one MDTM (8 studies) [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] (online supplemental file 5).…”

Radiotherapy Planning and Peer Review in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study of Cloud-Based Technology to Enable Remote Peer Review and Training

“…Crispen et al 11 analyzed the use of web-based peer review in three Caribbean radiation oncology centers. The review noted the positive attitude of users to introducing web-based peer review to small or isolated radiotherapy centers, and recommended that identifying the appropriate technology to achieve this could result in the successful implementation of peer review.…”

Multidisciplinary oncology care pathways, evaluation of organisational interventions

“…The MDTMs held by UMC and by the secondary hospital have been merged and using video-conferencing to reduce the number of MDTMs and decrease throughput times. Research on care pathway management in Scotland has shown that throughput time measurements on several levels should be taken into account to improve coordination in a region [46], and this is reflected in our recommendations below.…”

“…A limitation of this study is the lack of generally accepted indicators for care pathway management and definitions of those indicators that do exist [46] [57] [63]. We modified Dutch SONCOS standardised indicators to evaluate the reorganisation of the care pathways in order to be comparable to the indicators used in earlier research on the care pathway of head-andneck cancer patients [31].…”

“…Six types of VC usage in team collaboration in oncology care were distinguished (Table 1). Expert MDTM-National: providing expertise and experience on rare tumours nationally (17 studies) [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] , 2) Expert MDTM-International: providing international expertise and experience on rare tumours (5 studies) [35][36][37][38][39] , 3) Expert Consultation: physicians caring for complex patients seeking a consultation with experts (11 studies) [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] , 4) Consultation Specialist -Nurse: nurses consulting with palliative treatment specialists in specialised palliative care units or hospices (4 studies) [51][52][53][54] , 5) MDT-Equal: involving more-or-less equal MDTs that use each other for a 'fresh look' to optimise the diagnostic and treatment plans for complex cases (5 studies) [55][56][57][58][59] and 6) MDTM-Collaborate: MDTs collaborating to form one MDTM (8 studies) [60][61][62][63][64]...…”