Cargando…
An exploration of the feasibility of radiation therapist participation in treatment reviews
INTRODUCTION: As radiation oncologists' (ROs') workload has increased over time, treatment review clinics have become recognized as an area of RO practice into which radiation therapist (RT) practice could extend. There has been limited utilization of RTs in this role in Australia and a pa...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4175812/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26229617 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.23 |
_version_ | 1782336532874526720 |
---|---|
author | Monk, Clare Maree Wrightson, Stephanie Jane Smith, Tony Neil |
author_facet | Monk, Clare Maree Wrightson, Stephanie Jane Smith, Tony Neil |
author_sort | Monk, Clare Maree |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: As radiation oncologists' (ROs') workload has increased over time, treatment review clinics have become recognized as an area of RO practice into which radiation therapist (RT) practice could extend. There has been limited utilization of RTs in this role in Australia and a paucity of data on the acceptability and opinions regarding RTs practising in this role in an Australian context. The purpose of this audit was to investigate the feasibility of RT participation in review clinics at Calvary Mater Newcastle. METHODS: Feasibility was determined by two methods: an audit of 200 treatment reviews to determine medical intervention (MI) levels required and a survey of 80 clinical staff to explore attitudes towards RT participation in clinics. RESULTS: Medical intervention was required in 59% (n = 118) of observed reviews, with the lowest being for breast (33%) and prostate (28%) cancers. MI peaked at 73% between fractions 16–20 and was lowest early and late in the treatment period at 48%. There were 60 responses to the staff survey. All but one respondent agreed that RTs would be willing to participate in treatment review clinics, but all five consultant ROs indicated they would not be willing to delegate reviews to RTs. CONCLUSIONS: Neither feasibility measure reached acceptable levels to recommend RT participation in treatment review clinics. Further investigation and RT education are required to help meet the future RO workforce shortfall. As MI rates are lowest for breast and prostate cancer RT participation could be targeted to these clinics. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4175812 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-41758122014-09-30 An exploration of the feasibility of radiation therapist participation in treatment reviews Monk, Clare Maree Wrightson, Stephanie Jane Smith, Tony Neil J Med Radiat Sci Original Articles INTRODUCTION: As radiation oncologists' (ROs') workload has increased over time, treatment review clinics have become recognized as an area of RO practice into which radiation therapist (RT) practice could extend. There has been limited utilization of RTs in this role in Australia and a paucity of data on the acceptability and opinions regarding RTs practising in this role in an Australian context. The purpose of this audit was to investigate the feasibility of RT participation in review clinics at Calvary Mater Newcastle. METHODS: Feasibility was determined by two methods: an audit of 200 treatment reviews to determine medical intervention (MI) levels required and a survey of 80 clinical staff to explore attitudes towards RT participation in clinics. RESULTS: Medical intervention was required in 59% (n = 118) of observed reviews, with the lowest being for breast (33%) and prostate (28%) cancers. MI peaked at 73% between fractions 16–20 and was lowest early and late in the treatment period at 48%. There were 60 responses to the staff survey. All but one respondent agreed that RTs would be willing to participate in treatment review clinics, but all five consultant ROs indicated they would not be willing to delegate reviews to RTs. CONCLUSIONS: Neither feasibility measure reached acceptable levels to recommend RT participation in treatment review clinics. Further investigation and RT education are required to help meet the future RO workforce shortfall. As MI rates are lowest for breast and prostate cancer RT participation could be targeted to these clinics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2013-09 2013-09-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4175812/ /pubmed/26229617 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.23 Text en © 2013 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd on behalf of Australian Institute of Radiography and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Monk, Clare Maree Wrightson, Stephanie Jane Smith, Tony Neil An exploration of the feasibility of radiation therapist participation in treatment reviews |
title | An exploration of the feasibility of radiation therapist participation in treatment reviews |
title_full | An exploration of the feasibility of radiation therapist participation in treatment reviews |
title_fullStr | An exploration of the feasibility of radiation therapist participation in treatment reviews |
title_full_unstemmed | An exploration of the feasibility of radiation therapist participation in treatment reviews |
title_short | An exploration of the feasibility of radiation therapist participation in treatment reviews |
title_sort | exploration of the feasibility of radiation therapist participation in treatment reviews |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4175812/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26229617 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.23 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT monkclaremaree anexplorationofthefeasibilityofradiationtherapistparticipationintreatmentreviews AT wrightsonstephaniejane anexplorationofthefeasibilityofradiationtherapistparticipationintreatmentreviews AT smithtonyneil anexplorationofthefeasibilityofradiationtherapistparticipationintreatmentreviews AT monkclaremaree explorationofthefeasibilityofradiationtherapistparticipationintreatmentreviews AT wrightsonstephaniejane explorationofthefeasibilityofradiationtherapistparticipationintreatmentreviews AT smithtonyneil explorationofthefeasibilityofradiationtherapistparticipationintreatmentreviews |