ArticleBMJ open quality2026
Optimising the breast radiotherapy planning pathway: a quality improvement project at a regional cancer centre.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
At the South West Wales Cancer Centre, breast radiotherapy accounts for 24% of the radiotherapy workload. In 2021, only 16% of patients started treatment within 14 days compared with the Welsh time-to-radiotherapy quality metric target of 80%. Delays risk poorer outcomes for patients and create inefficiencies as tasks are often batched and staff alternate between idle and peak workload periods.Earlier analysis showed that only 1%-2% of the overall breast radiotherapy pathway time was value-adding activity. Key delays occurred at several stages of the pathway, where the total duration of each stage, including time spent waiting in the queue and time actively worked on, averaged around 50% longer than scheduled. For example, CT simulation was typically scheduled for 2 days but took more than 4 days while organ at risk (OAR) delineation was scheduled for 2 days but took approximately 2.5 days. Our improvement strategy targeted these delays through: (1) expansion of the technologist plan approval (TPA) pathway, (2) introduction of daily workflow meetings and clearer, standardised planning protocols and (3) implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) auto-contouring for OAR delineation. These changes were tested using the Model for Improvement, with statistical process control monitoring of metrics plus staff feedback.The mean total radiotherapy breast pathway time from consent-to-treatment decreased from 19.5 days to 14.8 days, with patients commencing treatment within 14 days increasing from 16% to 55%. Use of the TPA pathway increased from 61% to 95% and plan queries reduced from 11% to 3%, reducing oncologist workload. Daily workflow meetings and improved protocols reduced average planning times from 4 days to 1.5 days and were valued by staff for improving workload equity and team cohesion. AI auto-contouring reduced OAR delineation from 2.3 to 0.6 days, though ongoing validation of contour quality is required.
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.