"If You're Talking, I Think You're Muted": Follow-up Analysis of Weekly Peer Review Discussion and Plan Changes After Transitioning From Virtual to In-Person Format.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Clinical oncology Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1016/j.clon.2024.09.006
R T Hughes, J J Prasad, N B Razavian, J D Ververs, A C Snavely, C L Nightingale, K E Weaver, M D Chan, M K Farris
{"title":"\"If You're Talking, I Think You're Muted\": Follow-up Analysis of Weekly Peer Review Discussion and Plan Changes After Transitioning From Virtual to In-Person Format.","authors":"R T Hughes, J J Prasad, N B Razavian, J D Ververs, A C Snavely, C L Nightingale, K E Weaver, M D Chan, M K Farris","doi":"10.1016/j.clon.2024.09.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>During the COVID-19 public health emergency, we previously identified decreased rates of radiotherapy (RT) peer review (PR) discussion and plan changes in virtual versus in-person PR conferences. To expand on these findings, we continued to prospectively collect data on all PR conferences from 2021 to 2023 and performed a follow-up analysis before and after the transition back to in-person PR.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A prospectively maintained database of weekly PR cases was queried for consecutive cases reviewed before and after the transition from virtual to in-person conferences. Rates of PR discussion and change recommendations were summarized and compared between the virtual and in-person groups. A survey was developed and administered to assess participants' perceived levels of engagement, opinions on optimal PR format, and preferences for future meetings before and 3 months after the transition back to in-person PR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 2,103 RT plans were reviewed: 1,590 virtually and 513 after the transition back to in-person. There was no difference in faculty attendance between groups. The proportion of cases with PR discussion increased from virtual (9.8%) to in-person (25.5%) format (p < 0.001). In the virtual group, 8.1% of cases had 1 topic and 1.7% had 2+ topics discussed. This increased to 15.8% and 9.7% during in-person PR, respectively (p < 0.001). The rate of change recommendation also increased from 1.5% (virtual) to 3.3% (in-person, p = 0.016). Among cases with at least 1 topic discussed, there was no difference in changes. Survey-reported distraction significantly decreased from virtual to in-person PR (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Upon returning to in-person PR conferences, peer discussion and plan change recommendations significantly increased and returned to pre-pandemic levels, and participants' perceived levels of distraction were reduced. In an increasingly virtual world, additional efforts to develop best practices that maximize PR discussion and minimize distraction outside virtual conferences are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":10403,"journal":{"name":"Clinical oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2024.09.006","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

Aims: During the COVID-19 public health emergency, we previously identified decreased rates of radiotherapy (RT) peer review (PR) discussion and plan changes in virtual versus in-person PR conferences. To expand on these findings, we continued to prospectively collect data on all PR conferences from 2021 to 2023 and performed a follow-up analysis before and after the transition back to in-person PR.

Materials and methods: A prospectively maintained database of weekly PR cases was queried for consecutive cases reviewed before and after the transition from virtual to in-person conferences. Rates of PR discussion and change recommendations were summarized and compared between the virtual and in-person groups. A survey was developed and administered to assess participants' perceived levels of engagement, opinions on optimal PR format, and preferences for future meetings before and 3 months after the transition back to in-person PR.

Results: In total, 2,103 RT plans were reviewed: 1,590 virtually and 513 after the transition back to in-person. There was no difference in faculty attendance between groups. The proportion of cases with PR discussion increased from virtual (9.8%) to in-person (25.5%) format (p < 0.001). In the virtual group, 8.1% of cases had 1 topic and 1.7% had 2+ topics discussed. This increased to 15.8% and 9.7% during in-person PR, respectively (p < 0.001). The rate of change recommendation also increased from 1.5% (virtual) to 3.3% (in-person, p = 0.016). Among cases with at least 1 topic discussed, there was no difference in changes. Survey-reported distraction significantly decreased from virtual to in-person PR (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Upon returning to in-person PR conferences, peer discussion and plan change recommendations significantly increased and returned to pre-pandemic levels, and participants' perceived levels of distraction were reduced. In an increasingly virtual world, additional efforts to develop best practices that maximize PR discussion and minimize distraction outside virtual conferences are warranted.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"如果你在说话,我想你是静音的":从虚拟形式过渡到面对面形式后每周同行评审讨论和计划变更的后续分析。
目的:在 COVID-19 公共卫生紧急事件期间,我们曾发现在虚拟与面对面的同行评审(PR)会议中,放射治疗(RT)同行评审(PR)讨论率和计划变更率有所下降。为了扩展这些发现,我们继续前瞻性地收集了 2021 年至 2023 年期间所有同行评审会议的数据,并在转回面对面同行评审前后进行了跟踪分析:我们查询了每周公关案例的前瞻性数据库,以了解从虚拟会议过渡到面对面会议前后审查的连续案例。总结并比较了虚拟组和面对面组的公关讨论率和变更建议率。我们还制定并实施了一项调查,以评估参与者的参与程度、对最佳公关形式的看法以及在转回面对面公关之前和之后 3 个月对未来会议的偏好:共审查了 2,103 份 RT 计划:结果: 共审查了 2,103 份 RT 计划:1,590 份通过虚拟方式进行,513 份在过渡回面对面方式后进行。两组的教师出席率没有差异。从虚拟形式(9.8%)到面对面形式(25.5%),有 PR 讨论的病例比例有所增加(p < 0.001)。在虚拟组中,8.1% 的案例讨论了 1 个主题,1.7% 的案例讨论了 2 个以上的主题。在面对面公关中,这一比例分别增至 15.8% 和 9.7%(p < 0.001)。变更建议率也从 1.5%(虚拟)增加到 3.3%(面对面,p = 0.016)。在至少讨论了一个主题的案例中,变化没有差异。调查报告显示,从虚拟公关到面对面公关,注意力分散的情况明显减少(p < 0.001):回到面对面公关会议后,同行讨论和计划变更建议明显增加,并恢复到大流行前的水平,参与者感知到的分心程度也有所降低。在日益虚拟化的世界里,有必要进一步努力开发最佳实践,以最大限度地提高公关讨论效果,并最大限度地减少虚拟会议之外的分心现象。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical oncology
Clinical oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.80%
发文量
332
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Oncology is an International cancer journal covering all aspects of the clinical management of cancer patients, reflecting a multidisciplinary approach to therapy. Papers, editorials and reviews are published on all types of malignant disease embracing, pathology, diagnosis and treatment, including radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery, combined modality treatment and palliative care. Research and review papers covering epidemiology, radiobiology, radiation physics, tumour biology, and immunology are also published, together with letters to the editor, case reports and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Combination With Chemo or as Monotherapy vs. Chemotherapy Alone in Advanced, Unresectable HER2-Negative Gastric, Gastroesophageal Junction, and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Meta-Analysis. "If You're Talking, I Think You're Muted": Follow-up Analysis of Weekly Peer Review Discussion and Plan Changes After Transitioning From Virtual to In-Person Format. The Current use of Adaptive Strategies for External Beam Radiotherapy in Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review. The Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Cancer Care. Response Letter to Laurelli et al. Letter to the Editor Regarding Enhancing Telemedicine to Improve Global Radiotherapy Access.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1