Analysis of an inter-centre, web-based radiation oncology peer-review case conference

Purpose Peer-review programmes in radiation oncology are used to facilitate the process and evaluation of clinical decision-making. However, web-based peer-review methods are still uncommon. This study analysed an inter-centre, web-based peer-review case conference as a method of facilitating the decision-making process in radiation oncology. Methodology A benchmark form was designed based on the American Society for Radiation Oncology targets for radiation oncology peer review. This was used for evaluating the contents of the peer-review case presentations on 40 cases, selected from three participating radiation oncology centres. A scoring system was used for comparison of data, and a survey was conducted to analyse the experiences of radiation oncology professionals who attended the web-based peer-review meetings in order to identify priorities for improvement. Results The mean scores for the evaluations were 82·7, 84·5, 86·3 and 87·3% for cervical, prostate, breast and head and neck presentations, respectively. The survey showed that radiation oncology professionals were confident about the role of web-based peer-reviews in facilitating sharing of good practice, stimulating professionalism and promoting professional growth. The participants were satisfied with the quality of the audio and visual aspects of the web-based meeting. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that simple inter-centre web-based peer-review case conferences are a feasible technique for peer review in radiation oncology. Limitations such as data security and confidentiality can be overcome by the use of appropriate structure and technology. To drive the issues of quality and safety a step further, small radiotherapy departments may need to consider web-based peer-review case conference as part of their routine quality assurance practices.

Self and peer review in dance classes using personal video feedback

Many forms of formative feedback are used in dance training to refine the dancer’s spatial and kinaesthetic awareness in order that the dancer’s sensorimotor intentions and observable danced outcomes might converge. This paper documents the use of smartphones to record and playback movement sequences in ballet and contemporary technique classes. Peers in pairs took turns filming one another and then analysing the playback. This provided immediate visual feedback of the movement sequence as performed by each dancer. This immediacy facilitated the dancer’s capacity to associate what they felt as they were dancing with what they looked like during the dance. The often-dissonant realities of self-perception and perception by others were thus guided towards harmony, generating improved performance and knowledge relating to dance technique. An approach is offered for potential development of peer review activities to support summative progressive assessment in dance technique training.

The impact of peer review on the radiotherapy treatment planning process in the treatment of lung cancer

Background:
Advanced radiotherapy techniques permit accurate delivery of radiotherapy to lung tumours. Improved accuracy increases the possibility of radiotherapy field geographic miss of the tumour. One source of error is the accuracy of target volume (TV) delineation by the clinical oncologist. Colleague peer review of all curative intent lung cancer plans has been mandatory in our institution since May 2013. At least 2 clinical oncologists review plans checking treatment paradigm, TV delineated, dose to tumour and dose to critical organs. We report the impact of peer review on the radiotherapy planning process for lung cancer.

Methods:
The radiotherapy treatment plans of all patients receiving radical radiotherapy were presented at weekly peer review meetings after their TVs volumes were provisionally signed off by the treating consultant or post-fellowship registrar. All cases and any resultant change to the treatment plan were recorded in our prospective peer review database. We present the summary of changes agreed following the peer review process for a 6 month period.

Results:
Fifteen peer review sessions, including 46 patients (36 NSCLC, 10 SCLC) were analysed. An average of 3 cases were discussed per meeting (range 1 5). 24% of treatment courses were changed. In 4% there was a complete change in paradigm
of treatment (1 patient proceeded to induction chemotherapy, 1 patient had high dose palliative radiotherapy). In 16% there was a change in TV delineated and in 9% a change in dose (2 dose reductions and 2 alterations to post-operative dose fractionations).

Conclusions:
Consultant led peer review resulted in a change in a component of the treatment plan for 28% of patients that would not otherwise have taken place. Given this impact, consultant led peer review should be considered as an essential component in the radiotherapy planning process for all patients treated with curative radiotherapy.

The Impact of Colleague Peer Review on the Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Process in the Radical Treatment of Lung Cancer

AIMS: Modern radiotherapy uses techniques to reliably identify tumour and reduce target volume margins. However, this can potentially lead to an increased risk of geographic miss. One source of error is the accuracy of target volume delineation (TVD). Colleague peer review (CPR) of all curative-intent lung cancer plans has been mandatory in our institution since May 2013. At least two clinical oncologists review plans, checking treatment paradigm, TVD, prescription dose tumour and critical organ tolerances. We report the impact of CPR in our institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiotherapy treatment plans of all patients receiving radical radiotherapy were presented at weekly CPR meetings after their target volumes were reviewed and signed off by the treating consultant. All cases and any resultant change to TVD (including organs at risk) or treatment intent were recorded in our prospective CPR database. The impact of CPR over a 13 month period from May 2013 to June 2014 is reported.

RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-two patients (63% non-small cell lung carcinoma, 17% small cell lung carcinoma and 20% 'clinical diagnosis') were analysed. On average, 3.2 cases were discussed per meeting (range 1-8). CPR resulted in a change in treatment paradigm in 3% (one patient proceeded to induction chemotherapy, two patients had high-dose palliative radiotherapy). Twenty-one (17%) had a change in TVD and one (1%) patient had a change in dose prescription. In total, 6% of patients had plan adjustment after review of dose volume histogram.

CONCLUSION: The introduction of CPR in our centre has resulted in a change in a component of the treatment plan for 27% of patients receiving curative-intent lung radiotherapy. We recommend CPR as a mandatory quality assurance step in the planning process of all radical lung plans.

BioéthiqueOnline: Moving to Peer-Review / BioéthiqueOnline : Passage à l’évaluation par les pairs

Éditoral / Editorial

INFO2009 Reviews Partners, Commentary and Peer Review

guidance notes on review and evaluation processes. Part of the total handin required See also http://www.edshare.soton.ac.uk/9937/ for use in context and http://www.edshare.soton.ac.uk/9911/ for the guidance on the critical friend review process

Sustaining Success Week 5 Task: Peer review guidance

Description of how to conduct a peer review, and guidance on how to submit it as a task. Download and edit this document if you decide to hand in information relating to your peer review exercise.

FY2014-15 Peer Review

READ the guidance notes, then attempt the tasks CONTENTS: Peer review guidance

Scientific Journals, Peer Review and How to Write a Great Research Paper

Recording of the Elsevier Author Seminar by Dr Anthony Newman and Michaela Kurschildgen.

RTS-3 Task: Peer review guidance

Description of how to conduct a peer review