About: 100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: 100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible? Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ScholarlyArticle, within Data Space : covidontheweb.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	Academic Article research paper schema:ScholarlyArticle
isDefinedBy	Covid-on-the-Web dataset
title	100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?
Creator	Bernisz-Diaz, · Carmona, · Celada-Álvarez, · Chimeno, · Collado-Ballesteros, · »more»
source	Medline; PMC
abstract	PURPOSE: Peer review has been proposed as a strategy to ensure patient safety and plan quality in radiation oncology. Despite its potential benefits, barriers commonly exist to its optimal implementation in daily clinical routine. Our purpose is to analyze peer-review process at our institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Based on our group peer-review process, we quantified the rate of plan changes, time and resources needed for this process. Prospectively, data on cases presented at our institutional peer-review conference attended by physicians, resident physicians and physicists were collected. Items such as time to present per case, type of patient (adult or pediatric), treatment intent, dose, aimed technique, disease location and receipt of previous radiation were gathered. Cases were then analyzed to determine the rate of major change, minor change and plan rejection after presentation as well as the median time per session. RESULTS: Over a period of 4 weeks, 148 cases were reviewed. Median of attendants was six physicians, three in-training-physicians and one physicist. Median time per session was 38 (4–72) minutes. 59.5% of cases presented in 1–4 min, 32.4% in 5–9 min and 8.1% in ≥ 10 min. 79.1% of cases were accepted without changes, 11.5% with minor changes, 6% with major changes and 3.4% were rejected with indication of new presentation. Most frequent reason of change was contouring corrections (53.8%) followed by dose or fractionation (26.9%). CONCLUSION: Everyday group consensus peer review is an efficient manner to recollect clinical and technical data of cases presented to ensure quality radiation care before initiation of treatment as well as ensuring department quality in a feedback team environment. This model is feasible within the normal operation of every radiation oncology Department.
has issue date	2020-06-15(xsd:dateTime)
bibo:doi	10.1007/s12094-020-02394-8
bibo:pmid	32557395
has license	no-cc
sha1sum (hex)	d0833bcd6d53b28c626a383022720623580e0fde
schema:url	https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-020-02394-8
resource representing a document's title	100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?
has PubMed Central identifier	PMC7299249
has PubMed identifier	32557395
schema:publication	Clin Transl Oncol
resource representing a document's body	covid:d0833bcd6d53b28c626a383022720623580e0fde#body_text
is schema:about of	named entity 'physicians' named entity 'ensure' named entity 'This' named entity 'cases' named entity 'peer-review' »more»

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020

Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software