Provider Practices and Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Improving Quality Practices in Radiation Oncology Peer Review
Purpose: Radiation oncology peer review evaluates case-specific qualitative treatment planning decisions. We sought to understand interdisciplinary perspectives on peer review to identify factors affecting stakeholder engagement and implementation of recommendations. Materials and Methods: Semistruc...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2025-03-01
|
| Series: | Advances in Radiation Oncology |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109424002719 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832573091896623104 |
|---|---|
| author | Leslie Chang, MD Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD Khinh Ranh Voong, MD, MPH Todd R. McNutt, PhD Ori Shokek, MD Suzanne Evans, MD, MPH Jean L. Wright, MD |
| author_facet | Leslie Chang, MD Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD Khinh Ranh Voong, MD, MPH Todd R. McNutt, PhD Ori Shokek, MD Suzanne Evans, MD, MPH Jean L. Wright, MD |
| author_sort | Leslie Chang, MD |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Purpose: Radiation oncology peer review evaluates case-specific qualitative treatment planning decisions. We sought to understand interdisciplinary perspectives on peer review to identify factors affecting stakeholder engagement and implementation of recommendations. Materials and Methods: Semistructured interviews and Likert surveys (scaled, 0-10) with radiation oncology peer review participants were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two independent coders utilized a grounded theory approach to extract dominant themes. Results: Participants included 6 academic and 3 community radiation oncologists, 2 residents, 2 medical physicists, 2 radiation therapists, 4 dosimetrists, and 1 industry representative. Thematic priorities of peer review included adherence to institutional guidelines, clinical background to inform decision-making, detection of rare errors, and education. Key facilitators included pretreatment peer review, clear planning guidelines, and feedback on peer recommendations. Barriers to recommendation adoption included resource limitations and a lack of prospective data guiding qualitative recommendations. Participants perceived benefits of peer review were assessed with Likert surveys with higher values placed on reducing practice variation (8.0) and education (7.6) and a lower value placed on the detection of medical errors (7.4) and reduction of treatment delivery incidents (6.9). When comparing Likert scores by participant role, nonphysicians rated the overall importance of peer review (mean, 9.8 vs 6.5, P = .03) and education (mean, 9.0 vs 6.7, P = .02) significantly higher than physicians. Conclusion: Participants in radiation oncology acknowledged the importance of peer review, but there was significant variation in the perceived benefits. A higher value was placed on the alignment of clinical practice and nonphysician participant education. Future processes to improve communication and prospective plan review were identified as beneficial to peer review-mediated plan changes. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-8f46db49983440c0b6cf18419710f056 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2452-1094 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-03-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Advances in Radiation Oncology |
| spelling | doaj-art-8f46db49983440c0b6cf18419710f0562025-02-02T05:29:07ZengElsevierAdvances in Radiation Oncology2452-10942025-03-01103101708Provider Practices and Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Improving Quality Practices in Radiation Oncology Peer ReviewLeslie Chang, MD0Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD1Khinh Ranh Voong, MD, MPH2Todd R. McNutt, PhD3Ori Shokek, MD4Suzanne Evans, MD, MPH5Jean L. Wright, MD6Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Corresponding author: Leslie Chang, MDDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MinnesotaDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MarylandDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MarylandWellspan Radiation Oncology, York, PennsylvaniaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, ConnecticutDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North CarolinaPurpose: Radiation oncology peer review evaluates case-specific qualitative treatment planning decisions. We sought to understand interdisciplinary perspectives on peer review to identify factors affecting stakeholder engagement and implementation of recommendations. Materials and Methods: Semistructured interviews and Likert surveys (scaled, 0-10) with radiation oncology peer review participants were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two independent coders utilized a grounded theory approach to extract dominant themes. Results: Participants included 6 academic and 3 community radiation oncologists, 2 residents, 2 medical physicists, 2 radiation therapists, 4 dosimetrists, and 1 industry representative. Thematic priorities of peer review included adherence to institutional guidelines, clinical background to inform decision-making, detection of rare errors, and education. Key facilitators included pretreatment peer review, clear planning guidelines, and feedback on peer recommendations. Barriers to recommendation adoption included resource limitations and a lack of prospective data guiding qualitative recommendations. Participants perceived benefits of peer review were assessed with Likert surveys with higher values placed on reducing practice variation (8.0) and education (7.6) and a lower value placed on the detection of medical errors (7.4) and reduction of treatment delivery incidents (6.9). When comparing Likert scores by participant role, nonphysicians rated the overall importance of peer review (mean, 9.8 vs 6.5, P = .03) and education (mean, 9.0 vs 6.7, P = .02) significantly higher than physicians. Conclusion: Participants in radiation oncology acknowledged the importance of peer review, but there was significant variation in the perceived benefits. A higher value was placed on the alignment of clinical practice and nonphysician participant education. Future processes to improve communication and prospective plan review were identified as beneficial to peer review-mediated plan changes.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109424002719 |
| spellingShingle | Leslie Chang, MD Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD Khinh Ranh Voong, MD, MPH Todd R. McNutt, PhD Ori Shokek, MD Suzanne Evans, MD, MPH Jean L. Wright, MD Provider Practices and Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Improving Quality Practices in Radiation Oncology Peer Review Advances in Radiation Oncology |
| title | Provider Practices and Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Improving Quality Practices in Radiation Oncology Peer Review |
| title_full | Provider Practices and Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Improving Quality Practices in Radiation Oncology Peer Review |
| title_fullStr | Provider Practices and Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Improving Quality Practices in Radiation Oncology Peer Review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Provider Practices and Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Improving Quality Practices in Radiation Oncology Peer Review |
| title_short | Provider Practices and Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Improving Quality Practices in Radiation Oncology Peer Review |
| title_sort | provider practices and perceived barriers and facilitators in improving quality practices in radiation oncology peer review |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109424002719 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lesliechangmd providerpracticesandperceivedbarriersandfacilitatorsinimprovingqualitypracticesinradiationoncologypeerreview AT saraalcornmdphd providerpracticesandperceivedbarriersandfacilitatorsinimprovingqualitypracticesinradiationoncologypeerreview AT khinhranhvoongmdmph providerpracticesandperceivedbarriersandfacilitatorsinimprovingqualitypracticesinradiationoncologypeerreview AT toddrmcnuttphd providerpracticesandperceivedbarriersandfacilitatorsinimprovingqualitypracticesinradiationoncologypeerreview AT orishokekmd providerpracticesandperceivedbarriersandfacilitatorsinimprovingqualitypracticesinradiationoncologypeerreview AT suzanneevansmdmph providerpracticesandperceivedbarriersandfacilitatorsinimprovingqualitypracticesinradiationoncologypeerreview AT jeanlwrightmd providerpracticesandperceivedbarriersandfacilitatorsinimprovingqualitypracticesinradiationoncologypeerreview |