Prospective peer review quality assurance for outpatient radiation therapy.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We implemented a peer review program that required presentation of all nonpalliative cases to a weekly peer review conference. The purpose of this review is to document compliance and determine how this program impacted care. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 2988 patients were eligible for peer review. Patient data were presented to a group of physicians, physicists, and dosimetrists, and the radiation therapy plan was reviewed. Details of changes made were documented within a quality assurance note dictated after discussion. Changes recommended by the peer review process were categorized as changes to radiation dose, target, or major changes. RESULTS: Breast cancer accounted for 47.9% of all cases, followed in frequency by head-and-neck (14.8%), gastrointestinal (9.9%), genitourinary (9.3%), and thoracic (6.7%) malignancies. Of the 2988 eligible patients, 158 (5.3%) were not presented for peer review. The number of missed presentations decreased over time; 2007, 8.2%; 2008, 5.7%; 2009, 3.8%; and 2010, 2.7% (P < .001). The reason for a missed presentation was unknown but varied by disease site and physician. Of the 2830 cases presented for peer review, a change was recommended in 346 cases (12.2%) and categorized as a dose change in 28.3%, a target change in 69.1%, and a major treatment change in 2.6%. When examined by year of treatment the number of changes recommended decreased over time 2007, 16.5%; 2008, 11.5%; 2009, 12.5%; and 2010, 7.8% (P < .001). The number of changes recommended varied by disease site and physician. The head-and-neck, gynecologic, and gastrointestinal malignancies accounted for the majority of changes made. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with this weekly program was satisfactory and improved over time. The program resulted in decreased treatment plan changes over time reflecting a move toward treatment consensus. We recommend that peer review be considered for patients receiving radiation therapy as it creates a culture where guideline adherence and discussion are part of normal practice.