Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016 Sep-Oct;6(5):e171-e177. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2016.01.010. Epub 2016 Jan 26.

American College of Radiology (ACR) Radiation Oncology Practice Accreditation: A pattern of change.

Author information

1
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: FoghSE@radonc.ucsf.edu.
2
Department of Radiation Oncology, CARTI, Little Rock, AR.
3
Roseville Radiation Oncology, Sutter Medical Group, Roseville, CA.
4
Department of Radiation Oncology, Gundersen Health, La Crosse, WI.
5
Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA.
6
Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
7
Medical Radiation Physics, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ.
8
Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
9
Division of Oral Epidemiology & Division of Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
10
Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
11
Radiation Oncology Practice Accreditation Program, American College of Radiology, Reston, VA.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

The American College of Radiology (ACR) Radiation Oncology Practice Accreditation (ROPA) program has accredited more than 600 sites since 2006, including practices within academic, hospital-based, and freestanding settings. The purpose of this report is to evaluate and compare patterns of change in common deficiencies over time.

METHODS AND MATERIALS:

The ACR database was queried to analyze the common deficiencies noted by the ACR ROPA program between 2012 and 2014. Deficiencies were ranked and compared to the top 10 items that were reported in 2006.

RESULTS:

Between 2012 and 2014, 272 new applications and 306 renewals were received. Timely verification of port films, documentation of physician peer review, inclusion of essential elements of a treatment prescription, evidence of a final physicist chart review, documentation of weekly treatment visits, and inclusion of key elements of brachytherapy documentation all improved when compared with 2000-2005. Deficiencies ranked higher on the current review compared with the previous analysis included documentation of a robust quality assurance program, missing elements from the history and physical documentation, and documentation of follow-up visits.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our analysis of changes in patterns of deficiencies across radiation oncology practices reflects changes in our field such as the growing reliance on electronic records and imaging. Accreditation continues to play an integral role in establishing national standards and a nonpunitive, peer-reviewed method to evaluate a practice's compliance with national quality guidelines.

PMID:
27596035
DOI:
10.1016/j.prro.2016.01.010
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center