Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of Onsite Versus Online Chart Reviews as Part of the American College of Radiation Oncology Accreditation Program.
Hepel, Jaroslaw T; Heron, Dwight E; Mundt, Arno J; Yashar, Catheryn; Feigenberg, Steven; Koltis, Gordon; Regine, William F; Prasad, Dheerendra; Patel, Shilpen; Sharma, Navesh; Hebert, Mary; Wallis, Norman; Kuettel, Michael.
Afiliação
  • Hepel JT; Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI; Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, MA; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh; Penn State Hershey St Joseph Cancer Center, Reading, PA; University of California San Diego, La
  • Heron DE; Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI; Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, MA; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh; Penn State Hershey St Joseph Cancer Center, Reading, PA; University of California San Diego, La
  • Mundt AJ; Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI; Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, MA; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh; Penn State Hershey St Joseph Cancer Center, Reading, PA; University of California San Diego, La
  • Yashar C; Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI; Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, MA; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh; Penn State Hershey St Joseph Cancer Center, Reading, PA; University of California San Diego, La
  • Feigenberg S; Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI; Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, MA; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh; Penn State Hershey St Joseph Cancer Center, Reading, PA; University of California San Diego, La
  • Koltis G; Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI; Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, MA; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh; Penn State Hershey St Joseph Cancer Center, Reading, PA; University of California San Diego, La
  • Regine WF; Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI; Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, MA; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh; Penn State Hershey St Joseph Cancer Center, Reading, PA; University of California San Diego, La
  • Prasad D; Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI; Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, MA; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh; Penn State Hershey St Joseph Cancer Center, Reading, PA; University of California San Diego, La
  • Patel S; Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI; Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, MA; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh; Penn State Hershey St Joseph Cancer Center, Reading, PA; University of California San Diego, La
  • Sharma N; Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI; Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, MA; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh; Penn State Hershey St Joseph Cancer Center, Reading, PA; University of California San Diego, La
  • Hebert M; Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI; Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, MA; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh; Penn State Hershey St Joseph Cancer Center, Reading, PA; University of California San Diego, La
  • Wallis N; Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI; Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, MA; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh; Penn State Hershey St Joseph Cancer Center, Reading, PA; University of California San Diego, La
  • Kuettel M; Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI; Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, MA; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh; Penn State Hershey St Joseph Cancer Center, Reading, PA; University of California San Diego, La
J Oncol Pract ; 13(5): e516-e521, 2017 05.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28301278
PURPOSE: Accreditation based on peer review of professional standards of care is essential in ensuring quality and safety in administration of radiation therapy. Traditionally, medical chart reviews have been performed by a physical onsite visit. The American College of Radiation Oncology Accreditation Program has remodeled its process whereby electronic charts are reviewed remotely. METHODS: Twenty-eight radiation oncology practices undergoing accreditation had three charts per practice undergo both onsite and online review. Onsite review was performed by a single reviewer for each practice. Online review consisted of one or more disease site-specific reviewers for each practice. Onsite and online reviews were blinded and scored on a 100-point scale on the basis of 20 categories. A score of less than 75 was failing, and a score of 75 to 79 was marginal. Any failed charts underwent rereview by a disease site team leader. RESULTS: Eighty-four charts underwent both onsite and online review. The mean scores were 86.0 and 86.9 points for charts reviewed onsite and online, respectively. Comparison of onsite and online reviews revealed no statistical difference in chart scores ( P = .43). Of charts reviewed, 21% had a marginal (n = 8) or failing (n = 10) score. There was no difference in failing charts ( P = .48) or combined marginal and failing charts ( P = .13) comparing onsite and online reviews. CONCLUSION: The American College of Radiation Oncology accreditation process of online chart review results in comparable review scores and rate of failing scores compared with traditional on-site review. However, the modern online process holds less potential for bias by using multiple reviewers per practice and allows for greater oversight via disease site team leader rereview.
Assuntos
Texto completo
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar no Google

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Revisão por Pares / Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde / Sociedades Médicas / Radioterapia (Especialidade) / Acreditação Tipo de estudo: Guideline Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article
Texto completo
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar no Google

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Revisão por Pares / Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde / Sociedades Médicas / Radioterapia (Especialidade) / Acreditação Tipo de estudo: Guideline Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article