Patient safety in radiation oncology in Spain: a need to change

Masferrer, José Pardo; Peñalver, E. del Cerro; Martinez, Johanna; Ferrer-Albiach, Carlos

doi:10.1007/s12094-019-02184-x

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is especially noteworthy that self-assessment of knowledge on RM did not show different values for accredited departments. This could be caused by interpersonal differences in QM and RM knowledge, on the one hand, and the fact that the preparation for the accreditation process does not provide secure handling of RM tools to a satisfying extent, on the other hand, even though accreditation was previously described as an important component of patient safety [ 23 , 31 ].…”

Section: Self-assessment and Need For Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several countries having implemented different national regularities were identified, whereas no such implementation in national modus operandi for Germany was reported at that time. Multiple guidelines from different international societies and papers about best practice in RM in RO have been published [ 6 , 7 , 17 , 31 , 32 ]. These offer recommendations on different dimensions of RM as described in the above section and promote growing knowledge on that topic in RO society.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Risk management patterns in radiation oncology—results of a national survey within the framework of the Patient Safety in German Radiation Oncology (PaSaGeRO) project

Baehr

Hummel²,

Gauer

et al. 2022

Strahlenther Onkol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Risk management (RM) is a key component of patient safety in radiation oncology (RO). We investigated current approaches on RM in German RO within the framework of the Patient Safety in German Radiation Oncology (PaSaGeRO) project. Aim was not only to evaluate a status quo of RM purposes but furthermore to discover challenges for sustainable RM that should be addressed in future research and recommendations. Methods An online survey was conducted from June to August 2021, consisting of 18 items on prospective and reactive RM, protagonists of RM, and self-assessment concerning RM. The survey was designed using LimeSurvey and invitations were sent by e‑mail. Answers were requested once per institution. Results In all, 48 completed questionnaires from university hospitals, general and non-academic hospitals, and private practices were received and considered for evaluation. Prospective and reactive RM was commonly conducted within interprofessional teams; 88% of all institutions performed prospective risk analyses. Most institutions (71%) reported incidents or near-events using multiple reporting systems. Results were presented to the team in 71% for prospective analyses and 85% for analyses of incidents. Risk conferences take place in 46% of institutions. 42% nominated a manager/committee for RM. Knowledge concerning RM was mostly rated “satisfying” (44%). However, 65% of all institutions require more information about RM by professional societies. Conclusion Our results revealed heterogeneous patterns of RM in RO departments, although most departments adhered to common recommendations. Identified mismatches between recommendations and implementation of RM provide baseline data for future research and support definition of teaching content.

show abstract

Section: Self-assessment and Need For Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk management patterns in radiation oncology—results of a national survey within the framework of the Patient Safety in German Radiation Oncology (PaSaGeRO) project

Baehr

Hummel²,

Gauer

et al. 2022

Strahlenther Onkol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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-trainingphysicians 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.

show abstract