Radiotherapy-specific quality indicators at national level: How to make it happen. (January 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vaandering, Aude; Jansen, Nicolas; Weltens, Caroline; Moretti, Luigi; Stellamans, Karin; Vanhoutte, Frederik; Scalliet, Pierre; Remouchamps, Vincent; Lievens, Yolande
• Is Part Of: Radiotherapy and oncology. Volume 178(2023)
• Publication Date: 2023-01
• Subjects: Quality improvement -- Quality indicators -- Radiation oncology -- Benchmarking; RO Radiation oncology -- QI Quality indicator; Oncology -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Tumors -- Periodicals; Medical Oncology -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Tumeurs -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.9940642
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.11.022
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0167-8140

Abstract

Highlights: The collection of quality indicators on a national level is a valuable process in steering quality improvement initiatives. Radiotherapy specific quality indicators have been collected on a yearly and national basis in Belgium from 2016 until now. The feasibility of collecting radiotherapy specific quality indicators on a national basis was demonstrated with a high level of participation. Personalized feedback of the collected QIs have shown to guide departments in setting up quality improvement initiatives. Abstract: Purpose /objective: To promote best practice and quality of care, the Belgian College of Physicians for Radiotherapy Centers established a set of radiotherapy specific quality indicators for benchmarking on a national level. This paper describes the development, the collected QIs, the observed trends and the departments' evaluation of this initiative. Material and methods: The Donabedian approach was used, focussing on structural, process and outcome QIs. The criteria for QI selection were availability, required for low-threshold regular collection, and applicability to guidelines and good practice. The QIs were collected yearly and individualized reports were sent out to all RT departments. In 2021, a national survey was held to evaluate the ease of data collection and submission, and the perceived importance and validity of the collected QIs. Results: 18 structural QI and 37 process and outcome parameters (n = 25 patients/pathology/department) were collected. The participation rate amounted to 95 % overall. The analysis gave a national overview of RT activity, resources, clinical practice and reported acute toxicities. The individualized reports allowed departments to benchmark their performance. The 2021 survey indicated that the QIs were overall easy to collect, relevant and reliable. The collection of acute recorded toxicities was deemed a weak point due to inter-observer variabilities and lack of follow-up time. Conclusion: QI collection on a national level is a valuable process in steering quality improvement initiatives. The feasibility and relevance was demonstrated with a high level of participation. The national initiative will continue to evolve as a quality monitoring and improvement tool.