News | August 04, 2014

Two-Step Decision Tree Analysis Feasible Method to Manage Updates of Radiation Therapy Best Practices

August 4, 2014 — A two-step decision tree analysis, incorporating Donabedian’s model, is a feasible process to evaluate and distill the many available quality standards, guidelines, recommendations and indicators in order to update national and international quality standards for radiation therapy, according to a study published in the July/August 2014 issue of Practical Radiation Oncology (PRO), the official clinical practice journal of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

Guidelines, recommendations and indicators may be utilized to develop new “best practice” standards through a formal consensus process and evaluation of the evidence base. The appropriate requirements and criteria for redeveloped standards, however, are not as well defined. This study, “Quality standards in radiation medicine,” was designed to identify and validate an appropriate approach to collate, catalogue and analyze existing quality standards. A two-step decision tree method allows for the organization of numerous different standards issued by a range of national and international organizations and identifies duplicate standards as well as gaps in the standards.

Quality-related documents were identified using Google Scholar and Discover and three selection criteria: 1) national or international; 2) contain statements or questions related to measuring quality in a broad sense in radiation medicine programs; and 3) written in English. Technical quality control standards were not included in this analysis. From this analysis, eight publicly available documents were used to identify 454 radiation therapy quality standards or groups of standards. Each of the five study authors completed two exercises to categorize the 454 identified standards to Donabedian’s structure, process or outcome, and also to the target of the standard: patients, staff, equipment or clinical process, or organization, for a total of 12 primary categories.

In exercise one, the 454 standards were categorized using a two-step process. The first step was to categorize the standards according to the Donabedian model, which provides a framework for examining health services and evaluating quality of care using three categories: structure, process and outcome. This categorization resulted in groups of approximately 150 standards each, making an in-depth analysis difficult.

To reduce the size of the groups, a second step was implemented to classify the 454 standards according to each standard’s target group (patients, staff, equipment or clinical process, or organization). This two-step process resulted in 12 primary classifications with an average size of 40 standards. The resulting smaller group size helped in identifying duplicate standards and key quality measures. The evaluators’ responses were examined for reliability using the Fleiss free marginal kappa. The agreement between the evaluators was fair (k from 0.21 to 0.40) or moderate (k from 0.41 to 0.60), meaning three or more reviewers assigned the same categories in both steps to 67 percent (304) of the 454 quality standards. In the Donabedian model step, three or more evaluators agreed on the classification for 93 percent (422) of the 454 standards.

A second exercise was conducted, to determine if greater consistency in categorizations could be achieved. The evaluators reassessed any standards that did not receive unanimous categorization (n=290) in the first exercise. The standards were again categorized using the Donabedian model. When the 290 reevaluations were combined with the 164 that received unanimous agreement in exercise one, the free marginal kappa improved to 0.71, which shows substantial agreement (k=0.61 to 0.80). In exercise two, 64 percent (290) were classified as structure, 26 percent (116) were classified for process, and 10 percent (45) were classified for outcome.

“This research provides a sound basis for refining the global approach to improving quality and safety in radiation therapy. Although there is no agreed upon ‘best practice’ to use as the basis for revising standards, the methodology used in our study may be helpful for organizations interested in a formal consensus process for revising documents,” said Peter Dunscombe, Ph.D., University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta, and co-author of the study. “The analysis has already influenced refinement of the Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy’s Quality Assurance Guidance for Canadian Radiation Treatment Programs guideline document, supporting the CPQR’s work in further enhancing the high standards of Canadian radiation therapy treatment.”

For more information: www.practicalradonc.org

Related Content

Technology | PACS | January 22, 2018
QualiTest Group recently announced its improved Virtual Radiology Environment (VRE) testing solution for picture...
ASTRO and ASCO Launch New Cancer Care Quality Registry
News | Radiation Therapy | January 22, 2018
January 22, 2018 — A registry that tracks the quality of medical care provided to patients receiving cancer treatment
First Hospitals Achieve Inter-System Connectivity Across Accuray Radiation Therapy Platforms
News | Radiation Therapy | January 19, 2018
Accuray Inc. announced recently that the Heidelberg University Hospital in Heidelberg, Germany, and Oscar Lambret...
National Clinical Decision Support Company (NDSC) has an exclusive deal with the American College of Radiology (ACR) to provide medical imaging appropriate use criteria (AUC).

National Clinical Decision Support Company (NDSC) has an exclusive deal with the American College of Radiology (ACR) to provide medical imaging appropriate use criteria (AUC). 

Feature | Clinical Decision Support | January 18, 2018
January 18, 2018 — Change Healthcare announced the acquisition of National Decision Support Company (NDSC), a leader
RayStation Selected for New Carbon Ion Therapy Center in Japan
News | Treatment Planning | January 18, 2018
January 18, 2018 – RayStation has been chosen as the treatment planning system for a new carbon-ion therapy facility
Raysearch Receives First Order for the Raycare Oncology Information System
News | Oncology Information Management Systems (OIMS) | January 18, 2018
January 18, 2018 – Anderson Regional Cancer Center (ARCC) in Meridian, Mississippi, has placed the first order for...
News | Clinical Decision Support | January 12, 2018
January 12, 2018 — GE Healthcare has entered into a strategic, long-term partnership with Roche to jointly develop an
Mevion Receives 510(k) Clearance for Hyperscan Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy
Technology | Proton Therapy | January 04, 2018
Mevion Medical Systems has received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k) clearance for the Mevion S250i...
Study Compares Radiosurgery and Whole-Brain Radiation in Lung Cancer Patients With Multiple Brain Metastases
News | Radiation Therapy | January 03, 2018
Although targeted therapies have produced dramatic advances in the ability to control some types of advanced lung...
MEDraysintell Downgrades Proton Therapy Market Projection for 2030
News | Proton Therapy | January 02, 2018
MEDraysintell recently downgraded its projection for proton therapy rooms expected to be operational in 2030 from 1,200...
Overlay Init