ESTRO 2025 - Abstract Book

S2283

Interdisciplinary – Health economics & health services research

ESTRO 2025

Conclusion: Both departments were technical prepared to comply with all legal requirements. Full medical records are stored in the LHIS almost entirely in electronic form. Some data are shared on national platforms, but the specific data differ between the two countries. Due to differences in national regulations, formal solutions are needed to enable international data sharing, including specific tools to facilitate the practical exchange of data between countries.

Keywords: medical data security, patients' privacy rights

References: 1. Mocydlarz-Adamcewicz M., Effective communication between hospital staff and patients in compliance with personal data protection regulations; Rep. Pract. Oncol. Radiother 2021;26(6):833-838, DOI:10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0138 2. Mocydlarz-Adamcewicz M, Bajsztok B, Filip S, Petera J, Mestan M, Malicki J,Management of Onsite and Remote Communication in Oncology Hospitals: Data Protection in an Era of Rapid Technological Advances, J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13, 761, doi.org/10.3390/jpm13050761

1615

Poster Discussion Creating a Comprehensive Catalog of Patient Safety Indicators for Radiation Oncology: A Delphi Consensus Approach Andrea Baehr 1 , Maximilian Grohmann 1 , Felicitas Schwenzer 2 , Eva Christalle 2 , Isabelle Scholl 2 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 2 Department of Medical Psychology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany Purpose/Objective: The Patient Safety in German Radiation Oncology (PaSaGeRO) study aims to develop a comprehensive catalog of patient safety indicators (PSIs) specific to radiation oncology. Based on literature systematic literature review, as well as expert and patient perspectives, PSIs were created to reflect key tools, regulations and thresholds impacting patient safety (PS). The aim of this two-round Delphi study was to rate each PSI’s relevance, along with feasibility and ease of data collection. Material/Methods: A total of 213 PSIs were rated for their relevance for PS using a 9-point Likert scale in a digital survey conducted via LimeSurvey. Participants from all five professional groups in radiation oncology (RO) took part (n = 84 in round 1 and n = 72 in round 2). Consensus was defined as at least 90% of participants rating a PSI’s relevance at ≥ 6/9 points (acceptance). PSIs accepted by 75–89% of participants proceeded to round 2 of relevance rating, where they, along with PSIs that had already reached consensus, were additionally rated on feasibility and ease of data collection using a 4-point Likert scale. Free-text comments from round 1 could prompt the rephrasing or addition of PSIs, which then were (re-)evaluated for relevance. Each round was open for 4 weeks during July to September 2024.