AAPM task group report 288: Recommendations for guiding radiotherapy event narratives.

Incident reporting and learning systems provide an opportunity to identify systemic vulnerabilities that contribute to incidents and potentially degrade quality. The narrative of an incident is intended to provide a clear, easy to understand description of an incident. Unclear, incomplete or poorly organized narratives compromise the ability to learn from them. This report provides guidance for drafting effective narratives, with particular attention to the use of narratives in incident reporting and learning systems (IRLS). Examples are given that compare effective and less than effective narratives. This report is mostly directed to organizations that maintain IRLS, but also may be helpful for individuals who desire to write a useful narrative for entry into such a system. Recommendations include the following: (1) Systems should allow a one- or two-sentence, free-text synopsis of an incident without guessing at causes; (2) Information included should form a sequence of events with chronology; and (3) Reporting and learning systems should consider using the headings suggested to guide the reporter through the narrative: (a) incident occurrences and actions by role; (b) prior circumstances and actions; (c) method by which the incident was identified; (d) equipment related details if relevant; (e) recovery actions by role; (f) relevant time span between responses; (g) and how individuals affected during or immediately after incident. When possible and appropriate, supplementary information including relevant data elements should be included using numerical scales or drop-down choices outside of the narrative. Information that should not be included in the narrative includes: (a) patient health information (PHI); (b) conjecture or blame; (c) jargon abbreviations or details without specifying their significance; (d) causal analysis.

Consensus Quality Measures and Dose Constraints for Lung Cancer From the Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program and ASTRO Expert Panel.

PURPOSE: For patients with lung cancer, it is critical to provide evidence-based radiation therapy to ensure high-quality care. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Radiation Oncology Program partnered with the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) as part of the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance to develop lung cancer quality metrics and assess quality of care as a pilot program in 2016. This article presents recently updated consensus quality measures and dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A series of measures and performance standards were reviewed and developed by a Blue-Ribbon Panel of lung cancer experts in conjunction with ASTRO in 2022. As part of this initiative, quality, surveillance, and aspirational metrics were developed for (1) initial consultation and workup; (2) simulation, treatment planning, and treatment delivery; and (3) follow-up. The DVH metrics for target and organ-at-risk treatment planning dose constraints were also reviewed and defined. RESULTS: Altogether, a total of 19 lung cancer quality metrics were developed. There were 121 DVH constraints developed for various fractionation regimens, including ultrahypofractionated (1, 3, 4, or 5 fractions), hypofractionated (10 and 15 fractionations), and conventional fractionation (30-35 fractions). CONCLUSIONS: The devised measures will be implemented for quality surveillance for veterans both inside and outside of the VA system and will provide a resource for lung cancer-specific quality metrics. The recommended DVH constraints serve as a unique, comprehensive resource for evidence- and expert consensus-based constraints across multiple fractionation schemas.

Quality and Safety Considerations in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy: An ASTRO Safety White Paper Update.

PURPOSE: This updated report on intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is part of a series of consensus-based white papers previously published by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) addressing patient safety. Since the first white papers were published, IMRT went from widespread use to now being the main delivery technique for many treatment sites. IMRT enables higher radiation doses to be delivered to more precise targets while minimizing the dose to uninvolved normal tissue. Due to the associated complexity, IMRT requires additional planning and safety checks before treatment begins and, therefore, quality and safety considerations for this technique remain important areas of focus. METHODS AND MATERIALS: ASTRO convened an interdisciplinary task force to assess the original IMRT white paper and update content where appropriate. Recommendations were created using a consensus-building methodology, and task force members indicated their level of agreement based on a 5-point Likert scale, from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." A prespecified threshold of ≥75% of raters who select "strongly agree" or "agree" indicated consensus. CONCLUSIONS: This IMRT white paper primarily focuses on quality and safety processes in planning and delivery. Building on the prior version, this consensus paper incorporates revised and new guidance documents and technology updates. IMRT requires an interdisciplinary team-based approach, staffed by appropriately trained individuals as well as significant personnel resources, specialized technology, and implementation time. A comprehensive quality assurance program must be developed, using established guidance, to ensure IMRT is performed in a safe and effective manner. Patient safety in the delivery of IMRT is everyone's responsibility, and professional organizations, regulators, vendors, and end-users must work together to ensure the highest levels of safety.

Consensus Quality Measures and Dose Constraints for Prostate Cancer From the Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program and American Society for Radiation Oncology Expert Panel.

PURPOSE: There are no agreed upon measures to comprehensively determine the quality of radiation oncology (RO) care delivered for prostate cancer. Consequently, it is difficult to assess the implementation of scientific advances and adherence to best practices in routine clinical practice. To address this need, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Radiation Oncology Program established the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance (VA ROQS) Program to develop clinical quality measures to assess the quality of RO care delivered to Veterans with cancer. This article reports the prostate cancer consensus measures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The VA ROQS Program contracted with the American Society for Radiation Oncology to commission a Blue Ribbon Panel of prostate cancer experts to develop a set of evidence-based measures and performance expectations. From February to June 2021, the panel developed quality, aspirational, and surveillance measures for (1) initial consultation and workup, (2) simulation, treatment planning, and delivery, and (3) follow-up. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints to be used as quality measures for definitive and post-prostatectomy radiation therapy were selected. The panel also identified the optimal Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0 (CTCAE V5.0), toxicity terms to assess in follow-up. RESULTS: Eighteen prostate-specific measures were developed (13 quality, 2 aspirational, and 3 surveillance). DVH metrics tailored to conventional, moderately hypofractionated, and ultrahypofractionated regimens were identified. Decision trees to determine performance for each measure were developed. Eighteen CTCAE V5.0 terms were selected in the sexual, urinary, and gastrointestinal domains as highest priority for assessment during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This set of measures and DVH constraints serves as a tool for assessing the comprehensive quality of RO care for prostate cancer. These measures will be used for ongoing quality surveillance and improvement among veterans receiving care across VA and community sites. These measures can also be applied to clinical settings outside of those serving veterans.

Consensus Quality Measures and Dose Constraints for Breast Cancer From the Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program and American Society for Radiation Oncology Expert Panel.

PURPOSE: Using evidence-based radiation therapy to direct care for patients with breast cancer is critical to standardize practice, improve safety, and optimize outcomes. To address this need, the Veterans Affairs (VA) National Radiation Oncology Program (NROP) established the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program to develop clinical quality measures (QMs). The VA NROP contracted with the American Society for Radiation Oncology to commission 5 Blue Ribbon Panels for breast, lung, prostate, rectal, and head and neck cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Breast Cancer Blue Ribbon Panel experts worked collaboratively with the NROP to develop consensus QMs for use throughout the VA system, establishing a set of QMs for patients in several areas, including consultation and work-up; simulation, treatment planning, and treatment; and follow-up care. As part of this initiative, consensus dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints were outlined. RESULTS: In total, 36 QMs were established. Herein, we review the process used to develop QMs and final consensus QMs pertaining to all aspects of radiation patient care, as well as DVH constraints. CONCLUSIONS: The QMs and expert consensus DVH constraints are intended for ongoing quality surveillance within the VA system and centers providing community care for Veterans. They are also available for use by greater non-VA community measures of quality care for patients with breast cancer receiving radiation.

Consensus Quality Measures and Dose Constraints for Rectal Cancer From the Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Expert Panel.

PURPOSE: Ensuring high quality, evidence-based radiation therapy for patients with cancer is of the upmost importance. To address this need, the Veterans Affairs (VA) Radiation Oncology Program partnered with the American Society for Radiation Oncology and established the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance program. As part of this ongoing effort to provide the highest quality of care for patients with rectal cancer, a blue-ribbon panel comprised of rectal cancer experts was formed to develop clinical quality measures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Rectal Cancer Blue Ribbon panel developed quality, surveillance, and aspirational measures for (a) initial consultation and workup, (b) simulation, treatment planning, and treatment, and (c) follow-up. Twenty-two rectal cancer specific measures were developed (19 quality, 1 aspirational, and 2 surveillance). In addition, dose-volume histogram constraints for conventional and hypofractionated radiation therapy were created. CONCLUSIONS: The quality measures and dose-volume histogram for rectal cancer serves as a guideline to assess the quality of care for patients with rectal cancer receiving radiation therapy. These quality measures will be used for quality surveillance for veterans receiving care both inside and outside the VA system to improve the quality of care for these patients.

Consensus Quality Measures and Dose Constraints for Head and Neck Cancer with an emphasis on Oropharyngeal and Laryngeal Cancer from the Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program and American Society for Radiation Oncology Expert Panel.

PURPOSE: Safeguarding high-quality care using evidence-based radiation therapy for patients with head and neck cancer is crucial to improving oncologic outcomes, including survival and quality of life. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Veterans Administration (VA) National Radiation Oncology Program established the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program (VAROQS) to develop clinical quality measures (QM) in head and neck cancer. As part of the development of QM, the VA commissioned, along with the American Society for Radiation Oncology, a blue-ribbon panel comprising experts in head and neck cancer, to develop QM. RESULTS: We describe the methods used to develop QM and the final consensus QM, as well as aspirational and surveillance QM, which capture all aspects of the continuum of patient care from initial patient work-up, radiation treatment planning and delivery, and follow-up care, as well as dose volume constraints. CONCLUSION: These QM are intended for use as part of ongoing quality surveillance for veterans receiving radiation therapy throughout the VA as well as outside the VA. They may also be used by the non-VA community as a basic measure of quality care for head and neck cancer patients receiving radiation.

Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program and American Society for Radiation Oncology Quality Measures Initiative.

PURPOSE: Ensuring high quality, evidence-based radiation therapy for patients is of the upmost importance. As a part of the largest integrated health system in America, the Department of Veterans Affairs National Radiation Oncology Program (VA-NROP) established a quality surveillance initiative to address the challenge and necessity of providing the highest quality of care for veterans treated for cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: As part of this initiative, the VA-NROP contracted with the American Society for Radiation Oncology to commission 5 Blue Ribbon Panels for lung, prostate, rectal, breast, and head and neck cancers experts. This group worked collaboratively with the VA-NROP to develop consensus quality measures. In addition to the site-specific measures, an additional Blue Ribbon Panel comprised of the chairs and other members of the disease sites was formed to create 18 harmonized quality measures for all 5 sites (13 quality, 4 surveillance, and 1 aspirational). CONCLUSIONS: The VA-NROP and American Society for Radiation Oncology collaboration have created quality measures spanning 5 disease sites to help improve patient outcomes. These will be used for the ongoing quality surveillance of veterans receiving radiation therapy through the VA and its community partners.