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

Aiming for patient safety indicators in radiation oncology - Results from a systematic literature review as part of the PaSaGeRO study

BACKGROUND

Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) allow the evaluation of safety levels in healthcare settings. Despite their use in various medical fields, a specific and comprehensive PSI catalogue for radiation oncology (RO) is lacking. The Patient Safety in German Radiation Oncology (PaSaGeRO) study aims for the development of a specific PSI catalogue in radiation oncology.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic literature review as part of the PaSaGeRO study is to identify, formulate, and categorize PSIs specific to RO to bridge existing gaps in comprehensive patient safety evaluation.

METHODS

An electronic search in PubMed included studies from 1989 onwards, in English or German, focusing on safety and quality indicators in RO, patient safety measures, or risk analyses. Exclusions were non-transferable, country-specific measures, techniques exclusive to specific departments, and legally mandated procedures. Additional sources were identified through reference tracking and professional society websites. Two experts independently extracted PSIs from the included references.

RESULTS

Out of 157 included publications and nine secondary sources, we identified and formulated 145 PSIs. These were categorized into patient-specific processes (82, 56%), quality and risk management (42, 28%), human resources (15, 10%), and institutional culture (13, 9%).

CONCLUSION

The hereby developed PSIs provides a base for professionals to systematically evaluate and improve safety practices, addressing previously unmet needs in this field. By offering clear guidance on safety assessment, the catalogue has the potential to drive significant improvements in patient care and safety outcomes in RO. Funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00034690).

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

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.

RENORT: a project to analyze patterns of care in radiation oncology in Spain

PURPOSE

RENORT is an application (app) developed to assess the role of radiotherapy in the treatment of cancer using the oncology information systems (OIS).

METHODS/PATIENTS

The RENORT app was used to analyze the data for all patients seen and/or treated at six radiation oncology departments in Spain in 2019. This app can be used to extract the demographic data, treatment sequence, disease status, and radiotherapy treatments from the ARIA and Mosaiq OIS.

RESULTS

A total of 6564 treatments were performed at these six centers in 2019. Most patients (56.9%) were males (females 43.1%). The mean patient age was 64.9 years. The most common treatment types and sites were as follows: metastases/palliative care (25.9%), followed by breast (19.0%), genitourinary (13.7%), lung (10.1%), head and neck (6.0%), rectal (6.0%), gynecological (4.9%), and other (< 4%) cancers. Distribution by disease stage was as follows: breast cancer: 75.5% early stage (stages 0, I, and II); lung: 63.1% advanced stage (III and IV); and head and neck: 72.1% advanced. Treatment intent was curative in 76.5% of cases and palliative in 23.5%. The most common techniques were intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) (41.4%), followed by three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) (39.2%); stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) (8.1%); brachytherapy (5.5%); radiosurgery (2.1%); fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy to the brain (1.4%); and intraoperative radiotherapy (1.4%). Hypofractionation was used in 62.3% of curative treatments (mean number of fractions = 16.5).

CONCLUSIONS

RENORT is a free app that is available for the two main oncology information systems used in most radiation oncology departments. This app has demonstrated the capacity to extract data from these systems, which in turns allows for a comprehensive analysis and better understanding of the role of radiotherapy in the treatment of cancer.

Pattern of care in radiotherapy at a University Hospital in Spain: the RENORT project

PURPOSE

RENORT is a novel data mining application developed to extract relevant clinical data from oncology information systems (OIS; ARIA and Mosaiq) used in radiation oncology (RO).

METHODS/PATIENTS

We used RENORT to extract demographic and clinical data from the OIS of all patients treated at the RO Department at the General Hospital of Valencia during the year 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 1158 treatments were performed. The female/male ratio was 39.3%/60.7%, with a mean age of 66 years. The mean waiting time between the treatment decision/proposal to the first visit was 10.1 days. Mean duration of the treatment preparation process was 21 days. Most patients (90.4%) completed treatment within the prescribed time ± 7 days. The most common sites/treatment types were: metastatic/palliative treatments (n = 300; 25.9%), breast (209; 18.0%), genitourinary (195; 16.8%), digestive (116; 10.0%), thoracic (104; 9.0%), head and neck (62; 5.4%), and skin cancer (51; 4.4%). The distribution according to treatment intent was as follows: palliative (n = 266; 23.0%), adjuvant curative (335; 28.9%), radical without adjuvant treatment (229; 19.8%), radical with concomitant treatment (188; 16.2%), curative neoadjuvant (70; 6.0%), salvage radiotherapy (61; 5.3%); and reirradiation (9; 0.8%). The most common treatment techniques were IMRT/VMAT with IGRT (n = 468; 40.4%), 3D-CRT with IGRT (421; 36.4%), SBRT (127; 11.0%), 2DRT (57; 4.9%), and SFRT (56; 4.8%). A mean of 15.9 fractions were administered per treatment. Hypofractionated schemes were used in 100% of radical intent breast and prostate cancer treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The RENORT application facilitates data retrieval from oncology information systems to allow for a comprehensive determination of the real role of radiotherapy in the treatment of cancer patients. This application is valuable to identify patterns of care and to assess treatment efficacy.

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

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.