Article Sidebar
Published:
Sep 5, 2022Article Details
Copyright remains in the Author’s name. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial Works License. Authors are required to complete and sign an Author Agreement form that outlines Author and Publisher rights and terms of publication. The Agreement form should be uploaded along with other submissions files and any submission will be considered incomplete without it [forthcoming].
Material submitted for publication in the SAMJ is accepted provided it has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Please inform the editorial team if the main findings of your paper have been presented at a conference and published in abstract form, to avoid copyright infringement. The SAMJ does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors.
Previously published images
If an image/figure has been previously published, permission to reproduce or alter it must be obtained by the authors from the original publisher and the figure legend must give full credit to the original source. This credit should be accompanied by a letter indicating that permission to reproduce the image has been granted to the author/s. This letter should be uploaded as a supplementary file during submission.
Main Article Content
A quality improvement programme in radiotherapy using workflow audits
Abstract
Background. Evaluation of the quality of healthcare depends on measures of structures, processes and outcomes. Progress in recording data allows for better measures of processes, such as the completeness of clinical data, the performance of professional tasks and the use of checklists.
Objectives. To report the results of a radiotherapy (RT) workflow audit and a subsequent online survey of user experience.
Methods. The RT workflow audit was developed in 2016 and has been undertaken twice a year at 28 facilities or units, with a total of 32 linear accelerators. Electronic patient folders were reviewed to assess the documentation of 90 task items, of which 64 were scored. The auditor came from another facility. The online survey took place in July 2020. It contained questions on the audit’s process, professional value and future use. Invitations were sent by email to the 151 radiotherapist staff at the 28 units where the audit had been implemented. Responses were anonymous.
Results. For the RT workflow audit, scores improved from 60% in some units in 2016 to >90% in all units for at least 2 years since 2018. The number of responders to the online survey was 58, giving a responder rate of 38%. The margin of error of the results was 10%. The audit’s task items were considered appropriate by 77% of responders, and feedback was reported by 78% of them. The audit was considered very or extremely valuable to their unit’s service delivery by 58% of responders. Changes in the unit as a result of the audit were reported by 77% of responders. The audit was very useful or extremely useful to 75% of responders in maintaining personal professional standards. The proportion of responders who were very or extremely supportive of continuing with the audit was 77%. The comments in the online survey will be helpful for ongoing review of the RT workflow audit.
Conclusions. The RT workflow audit extends the scope of accreditation audits by including measures of processes. Users of the audit evaluate its processes favourably and report that it has value both in their unit’s clinical service and for their personal professional standards. The audit is effective in developing quality improvement programmes.
