Cargando…

AAPM task group report 275.S: Survey strategy and results on plan review and chart check practices in US and Canada

BACKGROUND: AAPM Task Group (TG) 275 was charged with developing practical, evidence‐based recommendations for physics plan and chart review clinical processes for radiation therapy. As part of this charge, and to characterize practices and clinical processes, a survey of the medical physics communi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schofield, Deborah L., Conroy, Leigh, Harmsen, William S., Johnson, Jennifer L., Wells, Michelle C., Dong, Lei, Fong de los Santos, Luis E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10113700/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36897824
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13952
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: AAPM Task Group (TG) 275 was charged with developing practical, evidence‐based recommendations for physics plan and chart review clinical processes for radiation therapy. As part of this charge, and to characterize practices and clinical processes, a survey of the medical physics community was developed and conducted. Detailed analyses and trends based on the survey that exceeded TG report length constraints are presented herein. AIMS: The design, development, and detailed results of the TG‐ 275 survey as well as statistical analysis and trends are described in detail. This is complementary material to the TG 275 report. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The survey consisted of 100 multiple‐choice questions divided into four main sections: 1) Demographics, 2) Initial Plan Check, 3) On‐Treatment, and 4) End‐of‐Treatment Chart Check. The survey was released to all AAPM members who self‐reported working in the radiation oncology field, and it was kept open for 7 weeks. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. To study practice differences, tests of association were performed using data grouped by four demographic questions: 1) Institution Type, 2) Average number of patients treated daily, 3) Radiation Oncology Electronic Medical Record, and 4) Perceived Culture of Safety. RESULTS: The survey captured 1370 non‐duplicate entries from the United States and Canada. Differences across practices were grouped and presented based on Process‐Based and Check‐Specific questions. A risk‐based summary was created to show differences amongst the four demographic questions for checks associated with the highest risk failure modes identified by TG‐275. CONCLUSION: The TG‐275 survey captured a baseline of practices on initial plan, on‐treatment, and end‐of‐treatment checks across a wide variety of clinics and institutions. The results of test of association showed practice heterogeneities as a function of demographic characteristics. Survey data were successfully used to inform TG‐275 recommendations.