Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 1, 2025
Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and Their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting
Published on: June 6, 2020
Improving Communication of Peer-Review Conference Outcomes: A Practical Experience
Joseph A Jones1, Michael H Soike2, D Hunter Boggs2
1Mitchell Cancer Institute, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama.
Purpose:
The aim of this work was to describe the design and implementation of a more robust workflow for communicating outcomes from a peer-review chart rounds conference. We also provide information regarding cycle times, plan revisions, and other key metrics that we have observed since initial implementation.
Methods And Materials:
A multidisciplinary team of stakeholders including physicians, physicists, and dosimetrists developed a revised peer-review workflow that addressed key needs to improve the prior process. Consensus terminology was developed to reduce ambiguity regarding the priority of peer-review outcomes and to clarify expectations of the treating physician in response to peer-review outcomes. A custom workflow software tool was developed to facilitate both upstream and downstream processes from the chart rounds conference. The peer-review outcomes of the chart rounds conference and resulting plan changes for the first 18 months of implementation were summarized.
Results:
In the first 18 months after implementation of the revised processes, 2294 plans were reviewed, and feedback priority levels assigned. Across all cases with feedback, the median time for the treating attending physician to acknowledge conference comments was 1 day and was within 7 calendar days for 89.1% of cases. Conference feedback was acknowledged within 1 day for 74 of 115 (64.3%) cases with level 2 comments and for 18 of 21 (85.7%) cases with level 3 comments (P = .054). Contours were modified in 13 of 116 (11%) cases receiving level 2 feedback and 10 of 21 (48%) cases receiving level 3 feedback (P < .001). The treatment plan was revised in 18 of 116 (16%) cases receiving level 2 feedback and 13 of 21 (61%) cases receiving level 3 feedback (P < .001).
Conclusions:
We successfully implemented a workflow to improve upstream and downstream processes for a chart rounds conference. Standardizing how peer-review outcomes were communicated and recording physician responses allow for improved ability to monitor conference activities.
Related Concept Videos
01:11Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care...
01:21Barriers to Effective Communication II
Cultural barriers:
Differences in values, beliefs, religion, knowledge, and tradition can significantly impact communication. Awareness of nonverbal cues is critical, especially when conversing with a patient from a different culture. What appears appropriate in one culture may be inappropriate in another.
Semantic barriers:
As a result of their tendency to use...
01:30Barriers to Effective Communication I
Communication barriers include the following:
Physiological barriers: They are limitations caused by a person's health condition or disability, such as hearing loss, poor eyesight, illness, or unconsciousness. An example to overcome this...
01:03Communication
01:23Techniques of Therapeutic Communication II: Focusing, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing
This therapeutic technique can also be used when a patient brings up pertinent information during a health-related conversation. The...
01:08Role of Communication in the Nursing Process III: Evaluation and Documentation