Peer review program to enhance treatment planning quality assurance for community radiation oncologists

Schuster, Jéssica; Cooley, Greg; Durkee, Ben Y.; Olson, Anna; Burr, Adam R.; Harari, Paul M.

doi:10.1007/s13566-020-00431-1

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Australia and internationally, peer review has been reported to improve patient care both directly and indirectly and be feasible within radiation oncology facilities 6–35 . The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) surveyed members in 2013 to establish peer review practice patterns, 36 with the majority of the 572 participating physicians supporting formal recommendation and guidance on peer review.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation oncology peer review in Australia and New Zealand

Chin

Ong

et al. 2022

J Med Imag Rad Onc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Peer review is a part of high quality care within radiation oncology, designed to achieve the best outcomes for patients. We discuss the importance of and evidence for peer review in clinical practice. The Royal Australia and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) has evolved a Peer Review Assessment Tool (PRAT) since 1999. We report the results of a RANZCR faculty survey conducted in radiation oncology facilities across Australia and New Zealand to guide the 2019 PRAT revision process, and discuss the development and implementation of the 2019 PRAT. Peer‐review processes are now mandated as a component of Australian and International Quality Standards. Several practical recommendations might address challenges for effective implementation of peer review process in routine clinical practice. This includes prioritising tumour sites and treatment techniques for peer review within the time and resources constraints of each institution, improving resource allocation, ensuring optimal timing and duration for peer review meetings, and adopting multi‐centre virtual peer review meeting where necessary.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%