ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2024
Review of Quality Audit in a Radiation Oncology Department in a Tertiary Care Hospital- 2 Year-Results.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to report the findings of comprehensive weekly quality audit of radiotherapy procedures conducted at our institute, assessing various domains including clinical notes, contour delineation, treatment planning, prescription accuracy, patient-specific quality assurance, and treatment set-up checks. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe audit protocol, based on the Peer Review Audit Tool (PRAT) from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, evaluated six critical parameters: clinical decisions, contours, treatment prescriptions, plan evaluation, plan quality assurance, and daily treatment set-ups. Patients were assessed for changes categorized as no change, minor change, or major change. The audit panel comprised radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and therapists. The audit is conducted on a weekly basis, including patients who initiated treatment within the preceding week.
resultsBetween December 2020 to October 2023, 1831 cases were treated with radiotherapy in our institution and all of them were included in the quality audit. Overall, majority of patients exhibited no changes across various domains, with minor adjustments noted in a small percentage of cases. Notably, the clinical note check domain showed 99% adherence to standards, while contour delineation and treatment planning domains displayed minor adjustments in 2.7% and 1.7% of cases, respectively. Prescription accuracy and patient-specific quality assurance demonstrated high compliance, with minimal changes observed. Treatment set-up checks revealed minor variations in 0.3% and major changes in 0.2% of cases.
conclusionThis study underscores the importance of comprehensive quality audits in radiation oncology to ensure precision and consistency in treatment delivery. By identifying potential areas for improvement and maintaining high standards across all stages of the radiotherapy process, such audits play a crucial role in optimizing treatment outcomes and enhancing patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.