Feature | January 13, 2015

Survey Indicates Positive Experience, Desire for More Guidelines to Improve Peer Review Process

Study analyzes results of peer review survey conducted by ASTRO in 2013

January 13, 2015 — A 2013 survey of radiation oncologists indicates that they would like more formal recommendations and guidance in order to improve the peer review process, according to a study published in the January-February 2015 issue of Practical Radiation Oncology (PRO), the clinical practice journal of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).  

The study, “Practice patterns for peer review in radiation oncology,” analyzed the results of a radiation oncology-specific, peer review survey conducted by ASTRO in 2013. The goal of the survey was to describe the frequency and content of peer review activities; to determine which peer review functions directly evaluate medical decision-making and technical expertise; to conduct an exploratory analysis of factors and demographics that impact peer review and to determine ASTRO’s physician members’ interest in additional guidance on peer review.

Designed by ASTRO’s Health Services Research Committee, the survey included eight demographic and 25 peer or practice review questions. The survey was distributed to all of ASTRO’s physician members and members-in-training worldwide (n=5,674). Of the 572 respondents, 93 percent (532) were practicing radiation oncologists and 7 percent (40) were residents, trainees or other. The respondents were divided evenly between academic and private practices or other. Seventy-eight percent (446) of respondents were from the United States; 5 percent (29) were from Canada and 17 percent (97) were from other countries.

Eighty-three percent (475) of respondents reported being involved in peer review and 75 percent (435) of respondents were comfortable with their practice’s current peer review program. Eleven percent (63) of respondents reported being uncomfortable with their program and 6 percent (40) responded that their working environment did not encourage peer review.

Respondents were asked when peer review was conducted at their institution. The results demonstrated that respondents were involved in peer review either during the first week of treatment or prior to initiation of treatment. Eighty-three percent (475) performed peer review during the first week of radiation therapy treatment and 65 percent (372) were involved in peer review prior to the beginning of treatment, also known as prospective peer review.

Respondents were asked what, if any, changes to patient case management were made as a result of peer review. Eighty-seven percent (498) of respondents made changes to fractionation; 82 percent (469) made adjustments to dose; 70 percent (400) altered contouring and 49 percent (280) altered the treatment intent. Physicians reported that 7 to 10 percent of patient cases were changed as a result of the peer review process.

Finally, respondents were asked if they supported the development of additional recommendations and guidance on peer review. Seventy-four percent (423) of respondents expressed interest in formal guidelines and recommendations from ASTRO to strengthen and improve the peer review process.

“Peer review is an important quality assurance process that facilitates physicians in constructively evaluating each other’s work, and our survey focused on medical decision making and technical expertise,” said David J. Hoopes, M.D., lead author of the study and a radiation oncologist at the Joint Radiation Oncology Center at Travis Air Force Base in Travis, California. “This study confirms that peer review is a common practice, however, there is wide variation in how it is performed. Additional research and evaluation of peer review are necessary to provide formal recommendations and guidance, including tools and workflow, to improve peer review processes, which will ultimately improve the efficacy and safety of radiation therapy for our patients.”

For more information: www.astro.org

 

 

Related Content

Videos | Radiation Oncology | October 11, 2019
Lorraine Drapek, DNP, nurse practitioner, radiation oncology, GI service,...
Patient Treatments With ViewRay's MRIdian Linac Begin in New England
News | Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) | October 08, 2019
ViewRay Inc. announced today that patient treatments are scheduled to begin in Boston with ViewRay's MRIdian Linac...
Videos | Prostate Cancer | September 30, 2019
Bill Hartsell, M.D., medical director of the Northwestern Medicine Proton Center in Warrenville, Ill., discusses the
eBook on Hypofractionation in the Age of Value-based Care

eBook on Hypofractionation in the Age of Value-based Care

Sponsored Content | Case Study | Radiation Therapy | September 30, 2019
Hypofractionated and ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy — increasing dose per fraction to enable significantly f
AI Accurately Predicts Radiotherapy Side Effects for Head and Neck Cancer Patients
News | Artificial Intelligence | September 26, 2019
For the first time, a sophisticated computer model has been shown to accurately predict two of the most challenging...
Partial and Whole-Breast Radiotherapy After Lumpectomy Provide Equally Satisfying Cosmetic Results
News | Radiation Therapy | September 25, 2019
Whole breast radiation and partial breast radiation following a lumpectomy yield similar cosmetic outcomes for women...
Hippocampal Avoidance Using IMRT Now Recommended as Standard of Care for Brain Metastases
News | Radiation Therapy | September 24, 2019
Patients with brain metastases who received whole-brain radiotherapy that avoided memory-specific hippocampal neural...