Quality standards in radiation medicine

Donaldson, Holly; Cao, Jeffrey Q.; French, John; Gillan, Caitlin; Milosevic, Michael; Lam, Catarina; Dunscombe, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.prro.2013.09.004

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The exploration of the SPA's dimensions of quality/ safety allows the tool to be positioned within the context of currently available standards commonly used for accreditation purposes. 16 Sixty-two percent of the SPA's indicators address process issues, with only 27% addressing structural dimensions. A comparable evaluation of 8 national and international sets of radiation medicine program standards identified 64% addressing structural issues and 26% process issues, which reflects a somewhat different emphasis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven of the 9 authors of the present paper assigned the indicators to categories according to a methodology described previously. 16 During the first round of the modified Delphi process, all authors assigned the indicators to categories independently using a spreadsheet. During the second and final consensus-building round, individual authors had access to all other authors' anonymized categorizations and were invited to review and modify, at their discretion, their original responses.…”

Section: Spa's Dimensions Of Quality/safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dimensions of quality/safety on the SPA Using the consensus-building modified Delphi process, 16 the SPA primary indicators were categorized by use of Donabedian's quality structure and the object of the indicator. With a kappa value 17 of 0.71, which is rated as substantial agreement, this analysis showed that 62% of SPA indicators address process issues, 27% structural issues, and 8% outcome.…”

Section: Participation and Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Safety Profile Assessment: An online tool to gauge safety-critical performance in radiation oncology

Dunscombe

Brown

Donaldson

et al. 2015

Practical Radiation Oncology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Spa's Dimensions Of Quality/safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Participation and Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Safety Profile Assessment: An online tool to gauge safety-critical performance in radiation oncology

Dunscombe

Brown

Donaldson

et al. 2015

Practical Radiation Oncology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Interest in developing and implementing a system of quality standards in radiotherapy has increased greatly in recent years. [9][10][11][12] Nevertheless, only a limited number of clinical audits, including one by our group, 2 have been conducted to date. 2,[13][14][15] It is in this context that the multi-institutional, international IROCA (Improving quality in Radiation Oncology through Clinical Audits; www.iroca.eu) project was born.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving radiation oncology through clinical audits: Introducing the IROCA project

Torras

Fundowicz

Aliste

et al. 2017

Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As radiotherapy practice and processes become more complex, the need to assure quality control becomes ever greater. At present, no international consensus exists with regards to the optimal quality control indicators for radiotherapy; moreover, few clinical audits have been conducted in the field of radiotherapy. The present article describes the aims and current status of the international IROCA "Improving Radiation Oncology Through Clinical Audits" project. The project has several important aims, including the selection of key quality indicators, the design and implementation of an international audit, and the harmonization of key aspects of radiotherapy processes among participating institutions. The primary aim is to improve the processes that directly impact clinical outcomes for patients. The experience gained from this initiative may serve as the basis for an internationally accepted clinical audit model for radiotherapy.

show abstract

“…These terms should have a basis in logic and be reproducible outside of an individual or local group within the clinic (4) . Standards used in health care have been found to significantly improve the accuracy of achieving the physician's intent of treatment, the effectiveness of communication between individual radiation oncology team members and software‐based platforms, and the quality of patient record‐keeping 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for treatment naming in radiation oncology

Denton¹,

Shields

Hahl

et al. 2015

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Safety concerns may arise from a lack of standardization and ambiguity during the treatment planning and delivery process in radiation therapy. A standardized target and organ‐at‐risk naming convention in radiation therapy was developed by a task force comprised of several Radiation Oncology Societies. We present a nested‐survey approach in a community setting to determine the methodology for radiation oncology departments to standardize their practice. Our Institution's continuous quality improvement (CQI) committee recognized that, due to growth from one to three centers, significant variability existed within plan parameters specific to patients’ treatment. A multidiscipline, multiclinical site consortium was established to create a guideline for standard naming. Input was gathered using anonymous, electronic surveys from physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, chief therapists, and nurse managers. Surveys consisted of several primary areas of interest: anatomical sites, course naming, treatment plan naming, and treatment field naming. Additional concepts included capitalization, specification of laterality, course naming in the event of multiple sites being treated within the same course of treatment, primary versus boost planning, the use of bolus, revisions for plans, image‐guidance field naming, forbidden characters, and standard units for commonly used physical quantities in radiation oncology practice. Guidelines for standard treatment naming were developed that could be readily adopted. This multidisciplinary study provides a clear, straightforward, and easily implemented protocol for the radiotherapy treatment process. Standard nomenclature facilitates the safe means of communication between team members in radiation oncology. The guidelines presented in this work serve as a model for radiation oncology clinics to standardize their practices.PACS number(s): 87.56.bd, 87.56.Fc, 87.55.Qr, 87.55.‐x, 87.55.N‐, 87.55.T‐, 87.55.D‐

show abstract

Quality standards in radiation medicine

Cited by 11 publications

References 11 publications

Safety Profile Assessment: An online tool to gauge safety-critical performance in radiation oncology

Safety Profile Assessment: An online tool to gauge safety-critical performance in radiation oncology

Improving radiation oncology through clinical audits: Introducing the IROCA project

Guidelines for treatment naming in radiation oncology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About