Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T03:00:15.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Radiation therapist peer review: raising the bar on quality and safety in radiation oncology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2014

Crispen Chamunyonga  and
Pete Bridge
Crispen Chamunyonga*
Affiliation:
Radiation Therapy Department, The Cancer Centre, Nassau, Bahamas
Pete Bridge
Affiliation:
School of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland 4001, Australia
*
Correspondence to: Crispen Chamunyonga, The Cancer Centre Bahamas, 72 Collins Avenue, Nassau, Bahamas. Tel: +1242 5029610. Fax: +1242 5029619 E-mail: crischams@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose

An emerging developmental tool to help radiation therapists achieve better outcomes is ‘peer review’. This review of the current literature summarises the challenges and benefits of peer review in both individual and departmental practice.

Discussion

There is compelling evidence supporting peer review implementation at both individual and department level in many professions. Implementing peer review requires that radiation therapists and other radiation oncology professionals embrace a culture that supports safety. Peer review can identify trends and barriers associated with quality radiotherapy and share best practice or recommend changes accordingly. Support for peer review must come from pre-registration educational systems as well as clinical managers. Continuing professional development in the workplace is nurtured by peer review of radiotherapy practice and an aptitude for this should be viewed as important to the profession as technical and clinical skills.

Conclusion

It is clear that peer review has the potential to facilitate reflective practice, improve staff motivation and help foster a culture of quality and safety in radiation oncology. To drive the issues of quality and safety a step further radiation therapists need to accept the challenge of adopting peer review methods in day-to-day practice.

Keywords

decision makingpeer reviewquality and safetyradiation therapists
Type
Literature Reviews
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 484 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Marks, L B, Adams, R D, Pawlicki, T et al. Enhancing the role of case orientated peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol 2013; 3 (3): 149–156.Google Scholar
2. Grol, R. Quality improvement by peer review in primary care: a practical guide. Qual Health Care 1994; 3: 147–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Marks, L B, Jackson, M, Xie, L et al. The challenge of maximising safety in radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol 2011; 1: 2–14.Google Scholar
4. Briggs, L. Peer review for advanced practice nurses. AACN Clin Issue 2005; 16 (1): 3–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. George, V, Haag-Heittman, B. Nursing peer review: the managers’ role. J Nurs Manage 2011; 19 (2): 254–259.Google Scholar
6. IAEA. Applying Radiation Safety Standards in Radiotherapy. Safety Report. Series 38. Vienna: IAEA, 2006.Google Scholar
7. Halvorsen, P H, Das, I J, Fraser, M et al. AAPM task Group103 report on peer review in clinical radiation oncology physics. J Appl Clin Medical Phys 2005; 6 (4): 50–64.Google Scholar
8. McIntyre, N, Popper, K. The critical attitude in medicine, the need for a new ethics. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983; 287: 1919–1923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Gusic, M, Hageman, H, Zenni, E. Peer review: a tool to enhance clinical teaching. Clin Teach 2013; 10: 287–290.Google Scholar
10. La Lopa, J M. A Scholarly Approach to a Peer Review of Teaching. J Culin Sci Tec 2012; 10 (4): 352–364.Google Scholar
11. Lawrence, Y R, Whiton, M A, Symon, Z et al. Quality assurance peer review chart rounds in 2011: a survey of academic institutions in the United States. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 84: 590–595.Google Scholar
12. Hansen, S D. Inviting observation. Prin Leadership 2010; 11 (2): 52–56.Google Scholar
13. Bennett, P N, Parker, S, Smigiel, H. Paired peer review of university classroom teaching in a school of nursing and midwifery. Nurs Educ Today 2012; 32 (6): 665–668.Google Scholar
14. Lee, C J. Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 2013; 64 (1): 2–17.Google Scholar
15. Chamberlain, J M, D'Artrey, M, Rowe, D. Peer observation of teaching: a decoupled process. Act Learn High Educ 2011; 12 (3): 189–201.Google Scholar
16. Schoenfeld, A H. How We Think: A Theory of Goal-Oriented Decision Making and Its Educational Applications. New York: Routledge, 2011.Google Scholar
17. Moran, J M, Dempsey, M, Eisbruch, A et al. Safety considerations for IMRT. Pract Radiat Oncol 2011; 1 (1): 190–195.Google Scholar
18. Pawlicki, T, Mundt, A J. Quality in radiation oncology. Med Phys 2007; 34 (5): 1529–1534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Odle, T G, Rosier, N. The Critical Role of the Radiation Therapist. Albuquerque: ASRT, 2012.Google Scholar
20. ICRP 86. Prevention of accidents to patients undergoing radiation therapy. Ann ICRP 2000; 30 (3): 54–55.Google Scholar
21. Hendee, W R, Herman, M G. Improving patient safety in radiation oncology. Med Phys 2011; 38 (1): 78–82.Google Scholar
22. Zietman, A L, Palta, J R, Steinberg, M L et al. Safety is no accident: a framework for quality radiation oncology and care. Albuquerque: ASRT, 2012.Google Scholar
23. Newnham, J. To reflect or not? Reflective practice in radiation therapy. J Radiother Pract 1999; 1 (3): 109–116.Google Scholar