An automated, workload-adjusted framework for continuous quality assessment in clinical radiation oncology.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Jose López Torrecilla, Pilar Ma Samper Ots, Germán Juan Rijo, Pilar Rey Castro, Jose Bayón Llera, Carlos Jose Ferrer Albiach
{"title":"An automated, workload-adjusted framework for continuous quality assessment in clinical radiation oncology.","authors":"Jose López Torrecilla, Pilar Ma Samper Ots, Germán Juan Rijo, Pilar Rey Castro, Jose Bayón Llera, Carlos Jose Ferrer Albiach","doi":"10.1007/s12094-026-04366-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Quality assessment in radiation oncology is essential to ensure safe, timely, and effective care. Although multiple quality indicators have been proposed, their routine implementation is often limited by heterogeneous definitions, manual data collection, and the lack of adjustment for clinical workload and treatment complexity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Within a national quality initiative, a structured revision of previously proposed quality indicators was performed. A survey among heads of Radiation Oncology departments was conducted to assess the relevance, feasibility, and management value of existing indicators. Based on survey results, a reduced set of prioritized indicators was selected and operationally defined for automated extraction from routine radiotherapy information systems. In parallel, a workload-based complexity stratification was developed, defining six levels for external beam radiotherapy and five levels for brachytherapy. Automated data extraction was implemented using commonly deployed clinical information systems, enabling continuous indicator monitoring without additional manual data entry.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-one department heads participated in the survey, with strong support for reinforcing quality indicator use. The original set of 29 indicators was reduced to 17 prioritized indicators covering structure, process, and outcome domains. Process indicators related to treatment preparation times for conventional and special techniques showed the highest acceptance. Automated extraction resulted in a standardized quality report enabling routine monitoring of indicator performance and data quality. The workload-based complexity stratification revealed substantial heterogeneity across treatment techniques and enabled contextual interpretation of activity and performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study presents an automated and workload-adjusted framework for continuous quality assessment in Radiation Oncology. By integrating prioritized quality indicators, workload-based complexity stratification, and automated data extraction, the proposed approach supports sustainable quality monitoring and facilitates meaningful inter-center comparison. Although developed within a national initiative, the methodological principles are broadly applicable to other healthcare systems and technologically complex oncological settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":50685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical & Translational Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical & Translational Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-026-04366-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Quality assessment in radiation oncology is essential to ensure safe, timely, and effective care. Although multiple quality indicators have been proposed, their routine implementation is often limited by heterogeneous definitions, manual data collection, and the lack of adjustment for clinical workload and treatment complexity.

Methods: Within a national quality initiative, a structured revision of previously proposed quality indicators was performed. A survey among heads of Radiation Oncology departments was conducted to assess the relevance, feasibility, and management value of existing indicators. Based on survey results, a reduced set of prioritized indicators was selected and operationally defined for automated extraction from routine radiotherapy information systems. In parallel, a workload-based complexity stratification was developed, defining six levels for external beam radiotherapy and five levels for brachytherapy. Automated data extraction was implemented using commonly deployed clinical information systems, enabling continuous indicator monitoring without additional manual data entry.

Results: Forty-one department heads participated in the survey, with strong support for reinforcing quality indicator use. The original set of 29 indicators was reduced to 17 prioritized indicators covering structure, process, and outcome domains. Process indicators related to treatment preparation times for conventional and special techniques showed the highest acceptance. Automated extraction resulted in a standardized quality report enabling routine monitoring of indicator performance and data quality. The workload-based complexity stratification revealed substantial heterogeneity across treatment techniques and enabled contextual interpretation of activity and performance.

Conclusions: This study presents an automated and workload-adjusted framework for continuous quality assessment in Radiation Oncology. By integrating prioritized quality indicators, workload-based complexity stratification, and automated data extraction, the proposed approach supports sustainable quality monitoring and facilitates meaningful inter-center comparison. Although developed within a national initiative, the methodological principles are broadly applicable to other healthcare systems and technologically complex oncological settings.

用于临床放射肿瘤学持续质量评估的自动化、工作量调整框架。
背景:放射肿瘤学的质量评估对于确保安全、及时、有效的治疗至关重要。虽然已经提出了多种质量指标,但其常规实施往往受到异构定义、手工数据收集以及缺乏对临床工作量和治疗复杂性进行调整的限制。方法:在国家质量倡议中,对先前提出的质量指标进行了结构化修订。通过对放射肿瘤科主任的调查,评估现有指标的相关性、可行性和管理价值。根据调查结果,选择并定义了一组简化的优先指标,用于从常规放疗信息系统中自动提取。同时,一种基于工作量的复杂性分层被开发出来,定义了外射束放疗的六个级别和近距离治疗的五个级别。使用常用的临床信息系统实现了自动数据提取,无需额外的手动数据输入即可实现连续的指标监测。结果:41名部门负责人参与了调查,对加强质量指标的使用给予了大力支持。最初的29个指标减少到17个优先指标,涵盖结构、过程和结果领域。与常规和特殊技术的处理准备时间相关的工艺指标显示接受度最高。自动提取产生了标准化的质量报告,能够对指标性能和数据质量进行常规监控。基于工作量的复杂性分层揭示了治疗技术之间的实质性异质性,并使活动和性能的上下文解释成为可能。结论:本研究为放射肿瘤学的持续质量评估提供了一个自动化和工作量调整的框架。通过整合优先级质量指标、基于工作量的复杂性分层和自动数据提取,所提出的方法支持可持续的质量监测,并促进有意义的中心间比较。虽然是在国家倡议范围内制定的,但方法原则广泛适用于其他医疗保健系统和技术复杂的肿瘤学环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
240
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Oncology is an international journal devoted to fostering interaction between experimental and clinical oncology. It covers all aspects of research on cancer, from the more basic discoveries dealing with both cell and molecular biology of tumour cells, to the most advanced clinical assays of conventional and new drugs. In addition, the journal has a strong commitment to facilitating the transfer of knowledge from the basic laboratory to the clinical practice, with the publication of educational series devoted to closing the gap between molecular and clinical oncologists. Molecular biology of tumours, identification of new targets for cancer therapy, and new technologies for research and treatment of cancer are the major themes covered by the educational series. Full research articles on a broad spectrum of subjects, including the molecular and cellular bases of disease, aetiology, pathophysiology, pathology, epidemiology, clinical features, and the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of cancer, will be considered for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书