Cargando…

Development and validation of a checklist for use with automatically generated radiotherapy plans

PURPOSE: To develop a checklist that improves the rate of error detection during the plan review of automatically generated radiotherapy plans. METHODS: A custom checklist was developed using guidance from American Association of Physicists in Medicine task groups 275 and 315 and the results of a fa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nealon, Kelly A., Court, Laurence E., Douglas, Raphael J., Zhang, Lifei, Han, Eun Young
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9512344/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35775105
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13694
_version_ 1784797829782306816
author Nealon, Kelly A.
Court, Laurence E.
Douglas, Raphael J.
Zhang, Lifei
Han, Eun Young
author_facet Nealon, Kelly A.
Court, Laurence E.
Douglas, Raphael J.
Zhang, Lifei
Han, Eun Young
author_sort Nealon, Kelly A.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To develop a checklist that improves the rate of error detection during the plan review of automatically generated radiotherapy plans. METHODS: A custom checklist was developed using guidance from American Association of Physicists in Medicine task groups 275 and 315 and the results of a failure modes and effects analysis of the Radiation Planning Assistant (RPA), an automated contouring and treatment planning tool. The preliminary checklist contained 90 review items for each automatically generated plan. In the first study, eight physicists were recruited from our institution who were familiar with the RPA. Each physicist reviewed 10 artificial intelligence‐generated resident treatment plans from the RPA for safety and plan quality, five of which contained errors. Physicists performed plan checks, recorded errors, and rated each plan's clinical acceptability. Following a 2‐week break, physicists reviewed 10 additional plans with a similar distribution of errors using our customized checklist. Participants then provided feedback on the usability of the checklist and it was modified accordingly. In a second study, this process was repeated with 14 senior medical physics residents who were randomly assigned to checklist or no checklist for their reviews. Each reviewed 10 plans, five of which contained errors, and completed the corresponding survey. RESULTS: In the first study, the checklist significantly improved the rate of error detection from 3.4 ± 1.1 to 4.4 ± 0.74 errors per participant without and with the checklist, respectively (p = 0.02). Error detection increased by 20% when the custom checklist was utilized. In the second study, 2.9 ± 0.84 and 3.5 ± 0.84 errors per participant were detected without and with the revised checklist, respectively (p = 0.08). Despite the lack of statistical significance for this cohort, error detection increased by 18% when the checklist was utilized. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the use of a customized checklist when reviewing automated treatment plans will result in improved patient safety.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9512344
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95123442022-09-30 Development and validation of a checklist for use with automatically generated radiotherapy plans Nealon, Kelly A. Court, Laurence E. Douglas, Raphael J. Zhang, Lifei Han, Eun Young J Appl Clin Med Phys Technical Notes PURPOSE: To develop a checklist that improves the rate of error detection during the plan review of automatically generated radiotherapy plans. METHODS: A custom checklist was developed using guidance from American Association of Physicists in Medicine task groups 275 and 315 and the results of a failure modes and effects analysis of the Radiation Planning Assistant (RPA), an automated contouring and treatment planning tool. The preliminary checklist contained 90 review items for each automatically generated plan. In the first study, eight physicists were recruited from our institution who were familiar with the RPA. Each physicist reviewed 10 artificial intelligence‐generated resident treatment plans from the RPA for safety and plan quality, five of which contained errors. Physicists performed plan checks, recorded errors, and rated each plan's clinical acceptability. Following a 2‐week break, physicists reviewed 10 additional plans with a similar distribution of errors using our customized checklist. Participants then provided feedback on the usability of the checklist and it was modified accordingly. In a second study, this process was repeated with 14 senior medical physics residents who were randomly assigned to checklist or no checklist for their reviews. Each reviewed 10 plans, five of which contained errors, and completed the corresponding survey. RESULTS: In the first study, the checklist significantly improved the rate of error detection from 3.4 ± 1.1 to 4.4 ± 0.74 errors per participant without and with the checklist, respectively (p = 0.02). Error detection increased by 20% when the custom checklist was utilized. In the second study, 2.9 ± 0.84 and 3.5 ± 0.84 errors per participant were detected without and with the revised checklist, respectively (p = 0.08). Despite the lack of statistical significance for this cohort, error detection increased by 18% when the checklist was utilized. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the use of a customized checklist when reviewing automated treatment plans will result in improved patient safety. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-06-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9512344/ /pubmed/35775105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13694 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Technical Notes
Nealon, Kelly A.
Court, Laurence E.
Douglas, Raphael J.
Zhang, Lifei
Han, Eun Young
Development and validation of a checklist for use with automatically generated radiotherapy plans
title Development and validation of a checklist for use with automatically generated radiotherapy plans
title_full Development and validation of a checklist for use with automatically generated radiotherapy plans
title_fullStr Development and validation of a checklist for use with automatically generated radiotherapy plans
title_full_unstemmed Development and validation of a checklist for use with automatically generated radiotherapy plans
title_short Development and validation of a checklist for use with automatically generated radiotherapy plans
title_sort development and validation of a checklist for use with automatically generated radiotherapy plans
topic Technical Notes
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9512344/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35775105
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13694
work_keys_str_mv AT nealonkellya developmentandvalidationofachecklistforusewithautomaticallygeneratedradiotherapyplans
AT courtlaurencee developmentandvalidationofachecklistforusewithautomaticallygeneratedradiotherapyplans
AT douglasraphaelj developmentandvalidationofachecklistforusewithautomaticallygeneratedradiotherapyplans
AT zhanglifei developmentandvalidationofachecklistforusewithautomaticallygeneratedradiotherapyplans
AT haneunyoung developmentandvalidationofachecklistforusewithautomaticallygeneratedradiotherapyplans