No abstract

the 5th delivered fraction. Nine point four percent of reviewed plans had changes suggested, primarily addressing target volumes or field sizes; dose changes were rare, and no changes were suggested to treatment intent. An additional 2.2% of reviewed plans resulted in feedback for general practice patterns, but not for specific changes to the plan. There was no difference in the time spent during review for plans resulting in feedback versus those that did not (8.1 vs 8.1 minutes). The postpilot survey showed a significant reduction in physicians reporting infrequent meaningful feedback compared to the prepilot survey (P < .05). Conclusion: Our prospective pilot study suggests that a straightforward "rotational peer review" model can reduce the likelihood of radiation oncologists reporting infrequent helpful feedback through peer review. If confirmed on a larger scale, this model may warrant consideration for implementation at other multiphysician practices seeking to improve peer review processes.