APEx ACCREDITATION PROCEDURES - ASTRO · PDF fileASTRO | APEx ACCREDITATION PROCEDURES | 2014 4 Pillar Two: The Radiation Oncology Team. The radiation oncology team works to provide

A S T R O | A P E x ACC R E D I TAT I O N P R O C E D U R E S | 2014 1

A P E x A C C R E D I TAT I O N P R O C E D U R E S

T A R G E T I N G C A N C E R C A R E

December 2014

®


TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE APEx PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................... 3

THE PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR APEx ACCREDITATION ............................................. 6

FACILITY VISITS ........................................................................................................................................ 7

CATEGORIES OF ACCREDITATION ............................................................................................... 9

CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS DURING ACCREDITATION CYCLE ...............................10

CONFIDENTIALITY OF APEx MATERIALS ...............................................................................11

REACCREDITATION PROCEDURES .............................................................................................11

COMPLAINTS .........................................................................................................................................12

PRACTICE ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE ..............................................................................14

APEx PRACTICE ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE DECISIONS .......................................15

APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE PRACTICE ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE .........17

CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS ...............................................................................................19

Copyright © 2014 American Society for Radiation Oncology. All Rights Reserved.

TA R G E T I N G C A N C E R C A R E


Overview. The mission of the ASTRO Accreditation Program for Excellence (APEx®) is to recognize facili-ties by objectively assessing the radiation oncology care team, policies and procedures, and the facility. APEx was created to support quality improvement in radiation therapy practices. The APEx Program establishes standards of performance derived from white papers and consensus practice guidance for radiation oncology. Facilities that obtain APEx practice accreditation will have the systems, personnel, policies and procedures that are needed to meet the APEx standards for high-quality patient care.

The APEx Program provides an objective review by professional peers of essential functions and

processes of radiation oncology practices (ROPs). It off ers transparent, measurable, evidence- and consensus-based standards that emphasize a professional commitment to safety and quality. Radiation oncology practices accredited by ASTRO will:

• Undergo an objective, external review of radiation oncology practices, policies and processes;• Demonstrate respect for protecting the rights of patients and being responsive to patient needs

and concerns; and• Adopt procedures to encourage safety and quality of care.

Scope of ASTRO Accreditation. APEx consists of a series of standards and measures relating to the performance of radiation oncology practice. ASTRO evaluates the clinical processes of radiation oncolo-gy practices, focusing on quality and safety of radiation oncology services.

Applicants must also meet applicable state and federal licensure and certifi cation requirements, including those of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as requirements of professional practice organizations. The ASTRO standards identify systematic quality and safety approaches that build on the regulatory framework to add value for practitioners and health care purchasers.

ASTRO reviews all treatment modalities and equipment in operation at the time of the accreditation application and facility visit. Practices may not imply or state that equipment or facilities not reviewed by ASTRO are accredited.

Thematic Focus of APEx Standards. The APEx standards are organized around fi ve Pillars as described below:

Pillar One: The Process of Care. The “process of care” in radiation oncology refers to a concep-tual framework for delivering appropriate, high quality and safe radiation therapy treatment to patients. Use of ionizing radiation in medical treatment requires direct or personal physician management, as the leader of the radiation oncology team, as well as input from various other essential coworkers. The Standards in this chapter derive from the model Process of Care fl ow diagram in the consensus report Safety is No Accident: A Framework for Quality Radiation Oncology Care. Standard 1: Patient Evaluation, Care Coordination and Follow-up Standard 2: Treatment Planning Standard 3: Patient-specifi c Safety Interventions and Safe Practices in Treatment Prepara-

tion and Delivery

THE APEx® PROGRAM


Pillar Two: The Radiation Oncology Team. The radiation oncology team works to provide every patient undergoing radiation treatment with the appropriate level of medical, emotional and psychological care before, during and after treatment, through a collaborative multidisciplinary approach. The primary radiation oncology team consists of, but is not limited to, radiation oncol-ogists, medical physicists, medical dosimetrists, oncology nurses and radiation therapists. Standard 4: Staff Roles and Responsibilities Standard 5: Qualifi cations and Ongoing Training of Staff Standard 6: Safe Staffi ng Plan

Pillar Three: Safety. The radiation oncology practice creates an interdisciplinary team-based culture of safety that continuously reviews, monitors and adapts all aspects of safety. Standard 7: Culture of Safety Standard 8: Radiation Safety Standard 9: Emergency Preparation and Planning

Pillar Four: Quality Management. The radiation oncology practice has a quality management program that includes the facility, equipment, information management, treatment procedures and modalities, and peer review. Standard 10: Facility and Equipment Standard 11: Information Management and Integration of Systems Standard 12: Quality Management of Treatment Procedures and Modalities Standard 13: Peer Review of Clinical Processes

Pillar Five: Patient-centered Care. ASTRO’s patient-centered care standards aim to make care safer by promoting eff ective communication, coordination of care and engaging patients and families as partners in care. These priorities are refl ected in the APEx standards and performance measures specifi c to the practice of radiation oncology. Standard 14: Patient Consent Standard 15: Patient Education and Health Management Standard 16: Performance Measurement and Outcomes Reporting

Eligibility. ROPs based in the United States may apply for ASTRO accreditation. ROPs may be either a single facility or multi-facility practice. Practices that operate multiple facilities under a standardized set of operating procedures and a single corporate designation may apply for multi-facility accreditation. For multi-facility practices, APEx will review corporate level operating procedures and will carry out facility-specifi c verifi cation of compliance for each satellite facility included in the accreditation application.

Radiation Oncology Practice Defi nition. For purposes of the APEx Program, an ROP is defi ned as a medical practice off ering radiation therapy services, utilizing the services of interdisciplinary profession-als under the direction of a board certifi ed radiation oncologist. An ROP may be a multi-site practice (e.g., a “main campus” with satellites).

All of the following criteria will be used to determine if a multi-facility practice can apply for all sites to be covered by the same accreditation application:

i. common policies and procedures for key evidence indicators; ii. a medical director who is responsible for each facility and one individual from practice leadership

who is responsible for the culture of safety standard operating procedure; iii. all facilities located within a 50-mile radius; andiv. the same corporate ownership of all the facilities.


Note, although a multi-site practice may be covered under one application, accreditation determina-tions will be made for each facility individually.

Length of Accreditation Cycle. APEx accreditation is granted for a four-year cycle. In order to avoid a lapse in accreditation, the ROP must complete the next facility visit no later than 90 days after the expiration of the accreditation date.

Pricing. The base fee for practice accreditation is $12,000. An additional $4,000 is required for each satellite facility.


THE PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR APEx ACCREDITATION

Governing Principle. Because the accreditation process is initiated by a facility that submits itself for review, the burden of proof of compliance with APEx standards rests with the applicant. Therefore, an application must be prepared with the degree of thoroughness that will satisfy detailed review. Application fees are nonrefundable.

Acceptance of the Application. A facility’s application will be accepted when the facility completes the APEx application, signs the Facility Agreement and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Business Associate Agreement and pays all required fees. Once the application is accepted, the facility will gain access to the Web-based self-assessment tool.

Assessment of Readiness.

Self-assessment. Practices assess their compliance with APEx accreditation standards by completing the Web-based self-assessment tool and using the APEx Self-assessment Guide, which provides a step-by-step process for completing the self-assessment. Practices submit their self-assessment, which includes medical record abstraction, uploaded policies and procedures and other supportive materials. ASTRO staff review each application, self-assessment and supporting materials upon submission to assess initial compliance with each element of the standards.

Interim report. The facility will be provided with a detailed interim feedback report that iden-tifi es the extent to which the facility is in compliance with each of the APEx evaluation criteria and may indicate defi ciencies that must be addressed in order to progress to the facility visit. Applicants are notifi ed if they are ready to proceed for a facility visit or if they must complete the self-assessment again. The facility will have time to correct defi ciencies and has three (3) oppor-tunities to pass the self-assessment. In addition, if the interim report identifi es new policies or processes that a facility must implement, the facility must demonstrate implementation, includ-ing that it has trained staff on the updated procedures. ASTRO will keep this report confi dential and only share it with the facility itself or as specifi ed in the APEx Policies and Procedures, unless otherwise required by law. A facility will be cleared for a facility visit when, in the judgment of ASTRO staff , a facility demonstrates compliance with each element of the APEx standards. The interim report is a preliminary indication of readiness for a facility visit; it is not a guarantee of accreditation.

Notice of Denial. In the event a facility does not demonstrate adequate compliance with the APEx standards after three attempts at passing the self-assessment, ASTRO will notify the facility in writing that their application was denied. If the facility wishes to reattempt the accreditation process, they will need to start from the beginning, including repayment of fees.

Withdrawal from Accreditation Process. At any time after acceptance of the application but before the Practice Accreditation Committee takes fi nal action to grant or refuse accreditation to an applicant facility, the senior signatory to the application may withdraw from the accreditation process without prejudice and forfeit application fees.


FACILITY VISITS

Arrangements for the Visit. ASTRO assigns a visiting team to conduct the facility visit. The team is selected from a list of names in the pool of approved surveyors who have undergone extensive APEx training. The team is selected based on a confl ict of interest review; geographic proximity to the facility (must be greater than 50 miles); and expertise with the facility’s electronic health records (EHRs), treatment planning systems and modalities, among other considerations. Prior to the facility visit, the surveyor team will have access to ROP’s APEx fi le, including the application (which describes the staffi ng, modalities, treatment planning system, electronic medical record system, etc.), and the document uploads from the self-assessment.

The Survey Team. Each survey team assigned to a single location practice or “main campus” will gen-erally consist of two radiation oncology professionals, including one medical physicist and one radia-tion oncologist (or other member of the radiation oncology team). This team will conduct an in-depth review at the main location that will last one business day. If an ROP has additional satellite facilities, an additional medical physicist surveyor will conduct expedited reviews of the mandatory evidence indicators at the satellite facilities. One additional medical physicist surveyor will be added for every two satellite facilities. Satellite facility visits will be performed exclusively by medical physicists to confi rm appropriate quality assurance activities.

Surveyor Requirements. ASTRO expects its surveyors to comply with all aspects of the Surveyor Agreement and all APEx Procedures, including but not limited to the following:

Accreditation Knowledge. Surveyors are expected to maintain knowledge of the APEx stan-dards and be able to apply knowledge of the APEx standards when gathering facility data and reporting survey fi ndings.

Continuing Education. Surveyors must participate in professional development activities and orientation exercises designed for all APEx surveyors. The goal of surveyor development is to help surveyors maintain or improve upon the knowledge and skills articulated within the surveyor competencies for APEx facility reviews. Surveyors also receive annual training in the requirements of HIPAA and its implementing privacy, security, breach notifi cation and enforcement regulations.

Computer Skills. Surveyors are expected to have computer skills suffi cient to allow them to collect data using current technologies and be able to complete survey forms in a timely manner at the facility. ASTRO will assign surveyors based on their familiarity with the facility’s EHR and treatment planning systems.

Professional Conduct and Use of Appropriate Communication. Surveyors are expected to exercise professional conduct and use appropriate communication in accordance with APEx sur-veyor procedures before and during the survey interview and with facility staff . Surveyors serve as data collectors for ASTRO; fi nal decisions will be made by committee as described below.

i. Surveyors should describe their role to the facility, following the script provided by ASTRO.ii. Surveyors may not engage in communication with a facility after the facility visit.


Confl icts of Interest: Before accepting a facility visit assignment, the surveyor must consider his or her ability to act impartially in reviewing the facility and whether such impartiality could be impaired by any fi nancial interest, personal relationship, commercial relationship or interest of the surveyor’s employer. Surveyors must actively engage in the identifi cation, disclosure and resolution of any confl icts of interests which arise. To this end, surveyors are expected to:

i. Disclose any fi nancial or contractual relationships with a facility under review that could create the perception of a confl ict of interest in the accreditation process (e.g., employ-ment, consulting arrangement, teaching position, working for a facility which is in competition with the facility under review, etc.).

ii. Disclose any fi duciary relationships with a facility under review that could create a perception of a confl ict of interest in the accreditation process (e.g., board membership, participation on a committee).

iii. Disclose a personal or professional relationship with staff of a facility under review that could create a perception of a confl ict of interest in the accreditation process (e.g., familial or professional relationship with key staff at the facility).

Compliance with Policies. ASTRO expects a surveyor to abide by all surveyor-related policies and procedures, including but not limited to ASTRO’s travel policy, which requires surveyors to submit expense reimbursement forms within 14 days of a survey, and to provide ASTRO with confl ict of interest information on an annual basis and as it changes.

Facility Requirements. ASTRO expects facilities applying for accreditation to comply with all aspects of the Facility Agreement and APEx Policies and Procedures, including but not limited to the following:

Confl icts of Interest. Facilities seeking accreditation will be provided with the surveyors’ names and location for review of confl icts of interest with the facility and its leadership. Facilities are expected to circulate this information to facility leadership and alert ASTRO to any fi nancial, contractual, fi duciary, personal or professional relationships between leadership and the surveyors that could compromise the impartiality of the facility visit.

Pre-facility Visit Teleconference. After the surveyors are approved, a pre-facility visit teleconference and facility visit are scheduled. The purpose of the pre-facility visit teleconference is to verify staffi ng, equipment, changes to the application, facility expectations, HIPAA security policies and other logistical arrangements.

Facility Logistical Arrangements. ROPs are expected to provide the following resources during the facility visit:

i. Patient list by name and case identifi cation number for the medical record review.ii. Access to medical records/paper charts.iii. Two computers per surveyor. (One computer is needed to access the electronic medical

record and another for the Web-based electronic data entry platform.)iv. Staff resources to guide the surveyor through the medical record.v. Dedicated work space for the surveyor team.vi. Access to key staff for interviews.vii. Signature list (staff names, titles and signatures).


CATEGORIES OF ACCREDITATION

The fi nal accreditation status of applicants is determined by ASTRO. Decisions are made on the basis of passage of the self-assessment and the facility visit. The following status determinations are possible:

Full Accreditation is granted to any practice that, in the exclusive judgment of ASTRO, meets the accreditation standards in a satisfactory manner.

Provisional Accreditation is granted to practices making initial application that, in the exclusive judgment of ASTRO, do not meet all the accreditation standards, but for which ASTRO believes there is a reasonable expectation that they will be met within a foreseeable period of time from the date of the initial facility visit.

Denials are issued to practices that are determined not to meet the requirements of the stan-dards. Applicants may reapply after one year or such other period as ASTRO shall identify in its sole discretion. In instances where a practice is denied accreditation due to submission of false information to ASTRO, ASTRO may, in certain circumstances, allow the ROP to reapply. Reapplication in these circumstances is in the sole discretion of ASTRO.

Once a facility has been accredited by ASTRO, it can be placed on probation or its accreditation status can be revoked.

Probation of a facility can occur if ASTRO learns that a practice is not currently in satisfactory compliance with the APEx standards or does not cooperate in a complaint investigation. Proba-tionary status continues for such period until ASTRO determines that full accreditation should be resumed or until accreditation is revoked.

Revocation of accreditation status can happen when the Practice Accreditation Committee determines that the practice has a persistent or signifi cant lapse in safety that impacts the decision on compliance with one or more of the APEx standards, has falsifi ed information provided to ASTRO or has materially changed the ROP to the extent that it is no longer eligible for or compliant with ASTRO’s accreditation requirements.

A S T R O | A P E x ACC R E D I TAT I O N P R O C E D U R E S | 2014 1 0

CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS DURING ACCREDITATION CYCLE

Interim Facility Visits. ASTRO may conduct a random facility visit, under the presumption that the practice will maintain its degree of compliance with the accreditation standards. For fully accredited practices, this may be in the third year following the last facility visit; for provisionally accredited prac-tices, it may be in the fi rst year.

Reaffi rmation of Accreditation. Accredited practices may be required to fi le a periodic report with ASTRO during the accreditation period, which presents a limited self-study by the practice and provides evidence of the practice’s continued compliance with the APEx standards at the level of its accreditation status. If this report is acceptable to ASTRO, the practice’s current accreditation status is reaffi rmed. If it is not, ASTRO may request additional information or a facility visit, stating to the prac-tice the reason that such a visit is necessary. In either case, the current accredited status of the practice is maintained until ASTRO takes action.

Reporting of Patient Safety Incidents. Accredited practices must comply with institutional, state, local and national requirements for reportable patient safety incidents. Accredited practices must notify ASTRO that there was a reportable patient safety incident under these requirements, within ten (10) business days of the reporting. Simply reporting events to a patient safety organization like RO-ILS: Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System™ does not trigger this reporting requirement.


The APEx Program aims to provide transparent, measurable, evidence- and consensus-based standards that emphasize a professional commitment to safety and quality. The APEx standards and supporting materials are provided to encourage ROPs to identify areas of opportunity for quality improvement. Facilities that have ap-plied for accreditation receive additional in-depth APEx materials to be used for quality improvement purposes. All of the APEx materials are the exclusive property of ASTRO and should not be reproduced, copied, distributed, transmitted or otherwise shared outside of the facility’s practice.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF APEx MATERIALS

REACCREDITATION PROCEDURESASTRO is developing reaccreditation procedures.


About the Operation of an Accredited Facility. A complaint about the operation of an accredited facility must:

i. be submitted in writing;ii. identify the individual, group or legal entity represented by the complainant;iii. provide a clear description of the incident(s) in question;iv. identify the APEx standard(s) implicated in the complaint; and v. grant permission to send the complaint, in its entirety, to the facility.

ASTRO will review each complaint and, in its sole discretion, will determine whether the allegation(s), if true, would indicate that the subject facility is not in compliance with one or more of the APEx stan-dards in use at the time referred to in the complaint. If a complaint does not meet these requirements, ASTRO will notify the complainant in writing. If a complaint does meet these requirements, it will be acknowledged by the Practice Accreditation Committee and sent to the facility for comment. Both com-plaint and comment are placed on the Practice Accreditation Committee agenda for its next scheduled meeting. The Practice Accreditation Committee may reach a decision at that meeting wherein the mat-ter is resolved and so inform the facility. The Practice Accreditation Committee may vote to pursue the matter further, either by further correspondence with the facility or by means of a special facility visit to provide additional information on which to reach a decision on the accreditation status of the facility. The facility is aff orded the opportunity to comment on any additional information provided to the Prac-tice Accreditation Committee as a result of a special facility visit. The Practice Accreditation Committee communicates the disposition of the complaint, in writing, to the complainant and the facility.

About the Actions of Facility Surveyors. The host institution, through an authorized representative, may fi le a complaint regarding the actions of facility surveyors. That representative must notify the Practice Accreditation Committee of the institution’s or facility’s intent to fi le a complaint within seven (7) days after completion of the facility visit. Complaints must be fi led within 30 days of the notifi cation of intent to submit the complaint. The complaint should be addressed to the Practice Accreditation Committee and must:

i. be submitted in writing;ii. identify the facility submitting the complaint and the surveyor(s) who are the subjects of the

complaint;iii. provide a clear description of the incident or other facts that form the basis of the complaint in

question; andiv. grant permission to send the complaint, in its entirety, to the facility surveyor team.

ASTRO will review each complaint and, in its sole discretion, will determine whether the allegation(s), if true, would indicate that the surveyor is not in compliance with APEx surveyor policies and procedures in use at the time referred to in the complaint. Receipt of a complaint meeting these requirements is re-ferred to the Practice Accreditation Committee for appropriate investigation and action and is acknowl-edged in writing.

The Practice Accreditation Committee will aff ord the surveyor(s) in question an opportunity to com-ment on the complaint and will engage in other eff orts to gather information regarding the allegation. The Practice Accreditation Committee will make a determination regarding the allegation and assess whether it infl uenced the content of the facility visit report and the outcome of the accreditation

COMPLAINTS


process. Where the Practice Accreditation Committee determines the issue regarding the surveyor af-fected the accreditation review and/or outcome, the Practice Accreditation Committee will take action to redress such eff ect. The Practice Accreditation Committee will communicate the disposition of the complaint, in writing, to the facility and to the facility surveyor(s).

Processing an Accreditation Complaint that is in Litigation. If, in the course of processing a com-plaint, the Practice Accreditation Committee fi nds that the party against which the complaint is fi led is involved in litigation over the same issue, the Practice Accreditation Committee, upon advice from legal counsel, may exercise its discretion in determining the most appropriate action to take in the case before it. That discretion can be guided by a number of factors, including whether the complainant is willing to cooperate with the Practice Accreditation Committee, how protracted the litigation is likely to be, whether the failure to initiate action against the facility immediately might damage the public inter-est and the impact on the confi dentiality of the Practice Accreditation Committee’s deliberations if its fi les are subpoenaed during the course of litigation. In all instances, the Practice Accreditation Commit-tee should consider the potential eff ect of its action upon the interests of the public and the profession.


Functions. The principal function of the Practice Accreditation Committee is to exercise professional judgment in making decisions regarding administration of the APEx standards. The Practice Accredita-tion Committee is charged with reviewing blinded applicant reports from review staff , issuing accred-itation decisions, and when necessary, reviewing applicant appeals. Members of the Practice Accred-itation Committee are trained in compliance requirements of the APEx accreditation standards. Each member attests to any potential confl icts of interest and adheres to ASTRO’s confl ict of interest policy and will recuse themselves from any matters where ASTRO, in its sole discretion, identifi es a potential confl ict.

Membership. The Practice Accreditation Committee consists of not fewer than 10 members appointed by ASTRO annually. The Practice Accreditation Committee will have co-chairs, a radiation oncologist and a physicist.

Quorum. Two-thirds of the members constitute a quorum for the purpose of making a decision. When a Practice Accreditation Committee member has withdrawn from a portion of the meeting, that position is not counted in determining a quorum. The vote of the simple majority of the Practice Accreditation Committee members at a meeting at which a quorum is present is required to make an accreditation decision.

Avoidance of Confl ict of Interest. Should a member of the Practice Accreditation Committee be in possible confl ict of interest with respect to any matter before the Committee (such as a relationship with any facility scheduled for review by the Committee or having a personal, fi nancial or business in-terest in the outcome of any topic under review by the Committee, etc.), that member shall be excused during discussion and decision on that matter. Furthermore, the Practice Accreditation Committee may, in its judgment, determine that a member is in possible confl ict of interest and ask that member to withdraw from discussion of, and decision on, a particular matter.

The Exercise of Professional Judgment. A high degree of professional judgment in the application of the APEx accreditation standards is required in the review of applications, in the conduct and reporting of facility visits, and in the deliberations of the Practice Accreditation Committee. Professional judgment must be used not only in evaluating the extent of compliance by a facility with each individual criterion but also by the site-visiting team in making its overall recommendation to the Practice Accreditation Committee and by the Practice Accreditation Committee in reaching its fi nal decision. While the stan-dards and processes of the APEx Program are transparent and objective, ASTRO relies on the profes-sional judgment of its Practice Accreditation Committee.

PRACTICE ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE


Basis for Decisions. Before rendering a decision on the award, denial, renewal or revocation of accred-itation, the Practice Accreditation Committee reviews the current self-assessment by the facility, the most recent facility visit report, other relevant materials and the facility’s comments on these materials. The Practice Accreditation Committee may make a decision or it may defer action until its next sched-uled meeting in order to obtain more information on which to base a decision. The decision of the Practice Accreditation Committee is recorded in the minutes and transmitted not later than one month following the decision to the facility. The facility also receives a statement of the factual basis for the decision and, in the case of an adverse decision, the standards the facility did not meet. That communi-cation clearly distinguishes between statements speaking to actual or potential defi ciencies in meeting standards and statements off ering consultative recommendations to the institution or facility. In the decision letter, the Practice Accreditation Committee encourages the facility to share information about its accredited status and to do so in accordance with ASTRO’s communication guidelines and rules gov-erning use of the APEx name and mark.

Decisions to Accredit, Provisionally Accredit or Deny Accreditation. The Practice Accreditation Com-mittee can accredit, provisionally accredit or deny accreditation, as follows and in its sole discretion:

i. In the case of a new facility applying for accreditation, the Practice Accreditation Committee votes whether to grant full accreditation. If the facility meets all of the mandatory evidence indicators and a signifi cant portion of the additional evidence indicators, full accreditation will be granted.

ii. If the Practice Accreditation Committee votes not to grant full accreditation, the Practice Accred-itation Committee will consider whether to grant provisional accreditation. Provisional accredi-tation will be granted to a facility that meets all of the mandatory standards but does not meet the necessary number of other standards. A provisionally accredited facility will need to satisfy specifi cations of a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) within a pre-determined time frame in order to be granted full accreditation. In limited circumstances, the Practice Accreditation Committee will consider extending provisional accreditation beyond the initial time frame to allow a facility additional time to meet the specifi cations in its CAP. Provisionally accredited facilities that receive neither full accreditation nor continued provisional accreditation will have their provisional accreditation revoked.

iii. Facilities that receive neither provisional nor full accreditation are denied accreditation.

Eff ective Date of a Decision and its Public Announcement. Award of full or provisional accreditation and all other decisions of the Practice Accreditation Committee are eff ective as of the date of the ad-journment of the Practice Accreditation Committee meeting where the decision was made. Accredited facilities will be published on the ASTRO website. A facility placed on probation will be removed from the public listing until the Practice Accreditation Committee makes a determination with respect to its accreditation status. The Practice Accreditation Committee will correct any errors of fact in its public listing in a timely manner.

APEx PRACTICE ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE DECISIONS


Revocation of Full Accreditation. The placing of a facility on probation is a clear warning that, if it does not substantially correct the defi ciencies noted by the Practice Accreditation Committee, the facility will have its accreditation revoked at the end of the probationary period. The Practice Accreditation Committee, in its sole discretion, has the authority to revoke accreditation when there is suffi cient doc-umentary evidence that the facility is no longer in compliance with the standards, with or without fi rst placing the facility on probation. At a subsequent time the facility may reapply for accreditation without prejudice.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Accredited Status. The facility may request termination of accredita-tion and removal of a facility from the published list of accredited facilities. The Practice Accreditation Committee will comply with that request and delete the facility. At a subsequent time the facility may reapply for accreditation without prejudice.


Decisions of the Practice Accreditation Committee are subject to appeal. Filing an Appeal. The facility may appeal any of the decisions of the Practice Accreditation Committee

specifi ed below within 30 days of receipt of written notice of the Practice Accreditation Committee’s decision. The appeal must specify the grounds on which the appeal is made and authorize sharing of information with the appeal panel, the ASTRO Board of Directors and as necessary to conduct the review. The appeal should be addressed to ASTRO. The burden of presenting the argument initially, and/or persuading the appeals body, rests with the facility fi ling the appeal.

Appealable Decisions. Only the following decisions of the Practice Accreditation Committee may be appealed:

i. In the case of a facility applying for accreditation, a denial of full or provisional accreditation.ii. In the case of a facility applying for accreditation, the award of provisional instead of full

accreditation.iii. In the case of a provisionally accredited facility, a denial of full accreditation or revocation of

provisional accreditation.iv. In the case of a fully accredited facility, a decision to revoke the facility’s accreditation.v. In the case of a facility on probationary status, a decision to revoke accreditation.

Formation of Ad Hoc Appeal Panel. Within 30 days of receipt of the appeal, the chair of the Board of Directors of ASTRO will refer the matter to a three-member Ad Hoc Appeal Panel (“the Appeal Panel”) with three alternates, none of whom shall have had affi liation with the facility. ASTRO staff determines the willingness of the designated principals and alternates to serve and notifi es the facility of the names of the three principals. If the facility shows good cause why a named principal is unacceptable, an alternate is selected who is acceptable to both parties. The co-chairs of the Practice Accreditation Committee designate a representative to appear before the Appeal Panel to support the decision of the Practice Accreditation Committee and to respond to questions of the Appeal Panel.

The Meeting of the Ad Hoc Appeal Panel. The Appeal Panel meets within 90 days of the date on which the facility is notifi ed of the adverse decision by the Practice Accreditation Committee or on a date mutually acceptable to the facility, the Appeal Panel and the Practice Accreditation Committee representative. The facility may have one or more representatives appear before the Panel to make an oral and/or written presentation and to respond to questions from the Panel. The Appeal Panel may request the assistance of counsel to provide guidance in the interpretation and resolution of legal or procedural problems that may arise in the context of an appeal.

Documents to be Considered by the Appeal Panel. The issues addressed by the Appeal Panel are limited to those relevant to the appeal made by the facility. The panel, the appellant and the Practice Accreditation Committee’s representative will be furnished with all the documents reviewed by the Practice Accreditation Committee in making its decision and the letter notifying the facility of the Prac-tice Accreditation Committee’s decision. Changes that may have been made by the facility that would alter the nature of the facility as described in these documents may not be considered by the Appeal Panel.

APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE PRACTICE ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE


Decisions of the Panel. The function of an Appeal Panel in a given case is to review the decision of the Practice Accreditation Committee based on the record that was before the Practice Accreditation Com-mittee at the time of its decision. In the event that the decision of the Practice Accreditation Committee is not upheld, the case will be remanded to the Practice Accreditation Committee for disposition in a manner not inconsistent with the fi ndings of the Appeal Panel.

Reporting of the Decision of the Panel. The report of the Appeal Panel, including the decision and the reasons for it, is prepared within 30 days and is addressed to the CEO of ASTRO, the chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors and the co-chairs of the Practice Accreditation Committee. Copies are forwarded to the authorized representative of the facility.


The records of the Practice Accreditation Committee and of Ad Hoc Appeal Panels used in making decisions on the accreditation of facilities and recommendations on all applications before it, and all records of the Practice Accreditation Committee relating to accreditation, shall be shared only as specifi ed in the APEx procedures and otherwise shall be kept confi dential except:

i. Listings of accredited facilities are published, as determined by the Practice Accreditation Committee and specifi ed in the APEx Practice Accreditation Committee Decision Section.

ii. Disclosure is made in those instances in which the Practice Accreditation Committee is legally required to disclose information.

iii. At the request of the radiation oncology medical director of the institution where a facility is located, information on a specifi c facility may be made available upon request to other accrediting agencies by which the institution has been accredited or whose accreditation it is seeking.

iv. In the case of an appeal, the Practice Accreditation Committee’s decision and record are made avail-able to the Board of Directors of ASTRO, the appeal panel and other parties as necessary to process the appeal.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS