Enhancing Value of Quality Assurance Rounds in Improving Radiation Therapy Management: A Retrospective Analysis (original) (raw)
Related papers
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 1989
process consisted of two steps. The first phase of review is an evaluation performed by a radiation oncologist to verify treatment plan and field borders. The second portion of the initial review process originally consisted of dosimetry calculation verification based on machine data provided by the regional Radiological Physics Center and treatment planning data provided by the accessioning institution. Between 1978 and December 31, 1987, a total of 11,343 cases in 96 RTOG protocols, excluding particle studies, underwent initial review. Of this number, 2227 patients were entered in lung cancer studies and 1341 patients were entered in head/neck cancer studies. Initial review was carried out in 2089 (93.8%) of the lung cancer cases. Missing or delayed data accounted for 138 (6.2%) cases not reviewed initially. In head/neck cancer trials, 1251 (93.2%) received initial review and 90 (6.8%) did not. Our findings suggest that there are sharply defined but long lasting learning experiences involved in clinical trial participation. Consideration may be given to modifying the initial review process to use random sampling of cases accessioned by experienced investigators in ongoing clinical trials and to continuing the total case evaluation on all new studies and cases entered by inexperienced investigators or investigators/institutions with unsatisfactory performance. Recommendations regarding initial review of other sites will await evaluation of the impact of initial review on those sites. Quality control, Initial review, Radiation therapy oncology group.
Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, 2019
Introduction: As a consequence of the development of improved treatment techniques and utilisation of digital records in radiation oncology, the RANZCR Peer Review Audit Tool has become outdated. The aim of this internal audit was to objectively evaluate the practice of our radiation oncology department to ensure that patients are being treated according to evidence-based national guidelines through the use of a new self-audit algorithm, the Radiation Oncology Quality Assessment Tool (ROQAT). Methods: Using ROQAT, a retrospective audit was conducted of patients who received definitive treatment within the first six months (June 2017-November 2017) of opening a new radiation oncology department at the Sunshine Coast University Hospital. Data were collected from MOSAIQ â and electronic medical records. Results: Two hundred and six patients were included. The median age was 65 years. Most commonly treated tumour streams included: breast (n = 62), skin (n = 31), colorectal (n = 25), genitourinary (n = 21) and head and neck (n = 21). Documentation was complete for all patients. Seventy-four per cent of patients were discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting. Fifty-five per cent of patients were treated with inverse planning techniques. Treatment with radiation therapy was indicated in 97% of patients. Dose and fractionation were concordant with protocols in 83% of cases. Thirty-nine per cent received concurrent chemotherapy, and of these, 93% were in accordance with protocols. More than 50% were treated according to published delineation protocols. Conclusion: The ROQAT is a proposal for a new audit tool that reflects modern radiation therapy practice, with emphasis on compliance with evidence-based guidelines.
Respiratory gated radiotherapy-pretreatment patient specific quality assurance
Journal of Medical Physics, 2016
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
Radiation therapy quality assurance in clinical trials – Global harmonisation group
Radiotherapy and Oncology, 2014
Participation in large multi-centre clinical trials aids establishment of the safety and efficacy of new cancer treatments and methods. Oncology clinical trials have contributed to improved local control, overall survival and quality of life for patients with varying disease types . Radiation Therapy is indicated in the course of treatment for more than 50% of all cancer patients and consequently a high percentage of oncology clinical trials include radiotherapy within their treatment schema.
Journal of Thoracic Disease
Background: Lung cancer is increasingly a disease of the elderly and frail population with a median age of 70 years at diagnosis. Therefore, consideration of the impact of interventions on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and not only absolute survival is especially important. For non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has been gaining popularity over the last few decades, replacing traditional open lobectomies. For high-risk patients who are not deemed suitable for surgery, stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) provides a potentially curative alternative. However, little is known about how VATS and SABR affect HRQOL measured using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). The LiLAC study (Life after Lung Cancer) aims to explore HRQOL following intervention with VATS or SABR using validated PROMs and to pilot the use of an online questionnaire system (QTool) in this setting. We hope the results will aid both patients and clinicians in decision making and improve the management of post-intervention problems. Methods: In total, 300 patients (150 VATS and 150 SABR) patients will be recruited over the study period. Patients will be approached prior to intervention and asked to complete baseline HRQOL questionnaires. They will be given access to the QTool online system and then in the 12 months following intervention will be asked to complete questionnaires (paper or online) at 4-time points. Answers will available for patients and clinicians to view throughout the study period. Clinical information (age, gender, co-morbidity, current medications and smoking status along with treatment-specific information) will also be collected. Primary outcome will be to detect changes of PROs (HRQOL and patient satisfaction) after VATS lung resections or SABR in early stage lung cancer patients. Secondary outcomes include correlation of patient's clinical data with HRQOL results to identify predictors of poor outcomes and exploration of patient and clinician views on the usefulness of QOL measurements. Discussion: (I) This first study will primarily compare multiple patients reported outcomes for 12 months after VATS lobectomy and SABR in early stages NSCLC patients. We will explore the acceptability of an online assessment of the HRQOL in NSCLC patients. (II) The study is also focused on the patients' opinion during the shared decision-making process, which has rarely been investigated in surgical lung cancer
Quality assurance in a Radiation Oncology Unit: The Chart Round experience
Australasian Radiology, 2001
Quality assurance ensures that planned treatments eventuate. Programmes must include feedback loops to promptly correct any shortfall in predetermined standards. In March 1999, a weekly Chart Round was introduced to verify that certain items relevant to quality care were being completed for patients of the Head and Neck Radiotherapy Unit at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute. The experience was reviewed after 1 year and it was found that the initiation of Chart Rounds has assisted in raising the level of item completion from 80% to 99% in similar groups of patients treated before and after the initiation of the Chart Round. Initiation of the Chart Round has also provided a useful forum for in-house peer-review, education and effective real-time communication between medical and allied health personnel, all of which has further added to the quality of patient care.
Acta Oncologica, 2006
Starting in 2002, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group in North America began the process of developing multicenter prospective trials in lung cancer using Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). Much of the work was based on the prospective single institution trials from Indiana University that had been presented and published. In late 2004, RTOG 0236 using SBRT for medically inoperable patients with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was activated for accrual. Prior to activation, representatives from the Lung, Image-Guided Therapy, Physics, and Radiobiology Committees met on regular occasions to design the multicenter study and quality assurance measures. SBRT is not a black box, and the essence of the therapy had to be distilled via guidelines. Issues related to patient selection, method of dosimetry construction, equipment requirements, motion assessments and control, site accreditation, data exchange, and follow-up policies were worked out by compromise and consensus. RTOG 0236 has nearly completed its accrual. The Lung Committee has initiated the development of several other trials, each building on the last, to investigate the therapy in central tumors, in combinations with systemic therapy, in operable patients, and in lung metastases patients. The guidelines developed for RTOG 0236 will be refined to take advantage of more modern innovations including heterogeneity corrections and intensity modulation when appropriate. The development of RTOG 0618 using SBRT in operable patients with early stage NSCLC is a testament to both the enthusiasm from already published works and prospective multicenter clinical testing using SBRT techniques.
Current Oncology, 2021
Patient-reported experience is associated with improved patient safety and clinical outcomes. Quality improvement programs rely on validated patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) to design projects. This descriptive study compares the experience of cancer patients treated with radiation as recorded through the Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey (AOPSS) or as recorded through Your Voice Matters (YVM) between February and August 2019. Six questions were compared (“overall experience with care”, “discussion of worries”, “involvement in decisions”, “trusting providers with confidential information”, “providing family with information”, and “knowing who to contact”). Positive experience scores were calculated by cohort and by tumor groups. Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated factors associated with positive experience. Two cohorts (220 and 200 patients) met the eligibility criteria for the AOPSS and YVM, respectively. Positive experience was reported si...