Peer Review Audits in Radar Healthcare: A Q&A Insight from GenesisCare

Q: Why has the team at GenesisCare implemented peer audits, and what are the benefits?

When audits are conducted internally, there’s a risk of unconscious bias. Some audits being completed locally were consistently scoring above 95% for long periods. Introducing peer audits, where staff from other sites conduct reviews, brings a fresh perspective that identifies overlooked issues, processes, and pathways. This approach improves accuracy, reduces bias, and ensures consistent compliance with clinical standards. Peer audits also drive meaningful actions, support standardisation across sites by highlighting protocol variations, and promote knowledge sharing. Ultimately, they go beyond compliance, fostering collaboration, transparency, and continuous improvement in patient care.

Q: How did you start using Radar Healthcare for peer review audits?

We began by adapting the standard local audit process to enable peer auditing within our clinical audits. Whilst our governance audits remain location-specific, our clinical audits are now largely completed on a peer-to-peer basis. To ensure I can schedule these accurately and to the appropriate staff, we created rotas for each specific craft group. Using the rotas provided by the Heads of Service, we then built a comprehensive Excel sheet which rolls from month to month. Temporary audit rights are granted to selected staff at the peer audited location for a 14-day audit period. Audits are scheduled accordingly, and once the period ends, audit permissions are removed so staff can only view their own local audits as before. Although this process is admin-heavy, we’re working closely with the Radar Healthcare product team to explore ways to streamline, as the outcomes have been incredibly valuable for learning and improvement.

Q: Are audits first completed by the centre and then peer reviewed, or are they solely peer reviewed?

Most clinical audits are peer reviewed from the outset. This includes SACT (Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy) audits, Radiotherapy Patient Pathway Audits, Pharmacy Audits, as well as the next step of my roll-out plan, our Diagnostic, Molecular Imaging and Molecular Radiotherapy Audits due to go-live in January 2026. Many of the audits are completed retrospectively by a nominated individual at the peer-linked site. Observational audits, like those in the SACT workspace, are done in person. The Lead Nurse travels to their named peer audited site for that month and then will observe and audit the staff member’s practice. Having this hands-on approach is very beneficial to ensure the quality of care delivered to our patients remains at the highest standard. The comparison between our scoring comes from historical data, how audits scored when done locally versus now with peer review.

Q: How frequently are audits conducted, and how do you ensure fresh perspectives?

Clinical audits are typically conducted, on average, every three months. To maintain objectivity, we rotate auditing responsibilities every 3-6 months. For example, Bristol may audit Maidstone in the first half of the year and then switch to auditing Windsor in the second half. This rotation ensures a continuous influx of fresh perspectives and highlights are areas we can focus on to improve overall clinical practice.

Q: Has peer auditing improved communication between centres?

Yes, significantly. Peer audits have helped break down siloed working and fostered collaboration. When a centre scores lower, they can reach out to the auditor for feedback and learning opportunities. It’s not about competition, it’s about improvement. Teams now actively engage in discussions to understand discrepancies and share best practices, which has greatly enhanced communication, learning and standardisation across GenesisCare.

Q: Have you seen measurable improvements since introducing peer audits?

Absolutely. For example, Infection Prevention Control audits, such as hand hygiene and national cleaning audits, often scored very high when done internally. However, when complete by a member of the central team, the scores didn’t quite match up. This highlighted areas for improvement, in staff training with regards to auditing correctly accurately, and also areas that may have been missed if these audits continued to be completed locally. The same applies to medical records audits, especially in Radiotherapy services which are very end-to-end pathway-driven. Peer audits bring a new set of experienced eyes that often catch things that can be improved on which might otherwise be missed.

Q: When did you start peer auditing, and what have you learned since?

We began towards the end of last year. Initially, scores dropped, which was expected, but the learning curve was valuable. One key improvement was integrating the action plan workflow. Previously, the person completing the audit would set the actions. Now, the auditor can reassign the action plan to the lead at the audited site, making the actions more relevant and impactful. This change has led to more meaningful goals and improved scoring over time.