Prospective contouring rounds: A novel, high-impact tool for optimizing quality assurance

Cox, Brett; Kapur, Ajay; Sharma, Anurag; Lee, Lucille; Bloom, Beatrice; Sharma, Rajiv; Goode, Gina; Potters, Louis

doi:10.1016/j.prro.2015.05.005

Cited by 43 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some practices have established have site specific processes such as the inclusion of physical exams by additional physicians or image review by radiologists that may alter contours [ 15 , 16 ]. Another example of individualized peer review is the incorporation of a prospective contouring rounds which feedback about contours and modification takes place prior treatment planning [ 17 ]. Given the variations in set up and clinic flow, individual departments may need to base their format of peer review on the unique operations of their clinic with certain considerations such as the number and type of patients treated, the number of campuses, and other educational conferences, etc.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of a real time group consensus peer review process in radiation oncology: an evaluation of effectiveness and feasibility

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPeer review systems within radiation oncology are important to ensure quality radiation care. Several individualized methods for radiation oncology peer review have been described. However, despite the importance of peer review in radiation oncology barriers may exist to its effective implementation in practice. The purpose of this study was to quantify the rate of plan changes based on our group peer review process as well as the quantify amount of time and resources needed for this process.MethodsData on cases presented in our institutional group consensus peer review conference were prospectively collected. Cases were then retrospectively analyzed to determine the rate of major change (plan rejection) and any change in plans after presentation as well as the median time of presentation. Univariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with major change and any change.ResultsThere were 73 cases reviewed over a period of 11 weeks. The rate of major change was 8.2% and the rate of any change was 23.3%. The majority of plans (53.4%) were presented in 6–10 min. Overall, the mean time of presentation was 8 min. On univariable logistic regression, volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were less likely to undergo a plan change but otherwise there were no factors significantly associated with major plan change or any type of change.ConclusionGroup consensus peer review allows for a large amount of informative clinical and technical data to be presented per case prior to the initiation of radiation treatment in a thorough yet efficient manner to ensure plan quality and patient safety.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of a real time group consensus peer review process in radiation oncology: an evaluation of effectiveness and feasibility

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In our context, peer review of key physician inputs to planning, done before the planning starts, is a QC step that should be embraced far more frequently than is common. [4][5][6][7] Twenty-nine percent of the problematic plans in this data set involved plans that were prepared and approved with dose and fractionation patterns different than intended. This frequency represents a significant opportunity for improvement.…”

Section: Physician Errors In Defining Targets or Prescribingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common error pathways seen in the RO-ILS data that demonstrate opportunities for improving treatment safety

Ezzell

Chera

Dicker

et al. 2018

Practical Radiation Oncology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Human examination/review is the most common approach to detect delineation errors, although, due to various human factors such as fatigue and vigilance, human examination can leave behind detectable errors . Inclusion of quality assurance (QA) programs such as peer review and consensus meeting within the delineation workflow increased the OAR delineation error detection rate . However, the inefficiency of peer review limits its incorporation into most clinical workflows, and when it is utilized, its effectiveness is prone to the same human factors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality assurance tool for organ at risk delineation in radiation therapy using a parametric statistical approach

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Prospective contouring rounds: A novel, high-impact tool for optimizing quality assurance

Cited by 43 publications

References 17 publications

Analysis of a real time group consensus peer review process in radiation oncology: an evaluation of effectiveness and feasibility

Analysis of a real time group consensus peer review process in radiation oncology: an evaluation of effectiveness and feasibility

Common error pathways seen in the RO-ILS data that demonstrate opportunities for improving treatment safety

Quality assurance tool for organ at risk delineation in radiation therapy using a parametric statistical approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About