ESTRO 2021 Abstract Book

S703

ESTRO 2021

No changes

117 (79.1%) 17 (11.4%)

4 5 6

• • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

Minor Major

9 (6%)

Rejected

5 (3.4%)

12

Type of change •

Dose/Fractionation

7 (26.9%) 14 (53.8%) 2 (7.7%) 3 (11.5%)

6 5 4 5

Contouring Technique Combination

• • •

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 operating of every Radiation Oncology Department. PD-0867 Development of a Radiotherapy Quality Assessment Tool D. megias 1 , Y.M. Tsang 2 1 Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Radiotherapy, Northwood, United Kingdom; 2 Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Radiotherapy , Northwood, United Kingdom Purpose or Objective There is increasing focus on developing and implementing quality and service improvement methodology in healthcare practice with it recognised that these principles must be embedded in the governance framework and culture of services. Radiotherapy (RT) pathways are complex and multidisciplinary. This project aims to develop a quality assessment (QA) tool for evaluating operational/technical aspects of RT service within and across different departments. Materials and Methods A multidisciplinary team (MDT) scoping exercise was undertaken within a single large RT centre and theme analysis was cross referenced with associated literature and theories to inform the development of the QA tool. The tool was validated in three different clinical scenarios and the associated processes were refined through MDT inquiries. There as 5 steps to completing the tool as a collaborative MDT. 1. Framing the question Questions can be categorised into two categories. Category 1: Direct comparison between the same service/pathway in two different departments. Category 2: Comparison of two alternative pathways in a single department. 2. Identifying drivers Primary and secondary drivers for answering the given question should be discussed and noted to allow for considered evaluation of scoring following completion of the tool 3. Scoping Review of the metrics/measures of quality and efficiency/resource for different aspects of the pathway should be identified under the headings outlined below. - Structure: Consider the attributes of the service/ pathway such as e.g. Staff to patient ratios, Skill Mix/Pay banding - Process: Consider how each procedure/system of work interacts in order to achieve the outcomes as defined by clinical policies and procedures. - Outcome: Measures should consider the impact on potential endpoints. 4. Scoring Each aspects of the pathway identified under the different headings is discussed and scored according to the scoring matrix for both the quality and efficiency/productivity (table 1). Only a quality score is applied to the outcomes.

Quality Score

Benchmarks

well

against

quality

1

Good

metric/standard.

Benchmarks appropriately/meets quality metric/standard. Does not meet quality metric/standard.

3

Appropriate

5

Sub-optimal

Efficiency/Productivity Score 1

3

5

Major

Moderate

Limited

Limited improvement/ significant difference Efficiency/Productivity

Improvement

in

Appropriate Efficiency/Productivity

Efficiency/Productivity

5. Evaluation Scores are then reviewed to evaluate where themes are polarised and/or where themes directly relate to the original drivers for undertaking the quality improvement tool to ensure no unconscious bias may be evident.

Results