Search

A therapeutic medical physicist is responsible for reviewing radiation therapy treatment plans and patient charts, including initial treatment plans and new chart review, on treatment chart (weekly) review, and end of treatment chart review for both external beam radiation and brachytherapy. Task group report TG 275 examined this topic using a risk‐based approach to provide a thorough analysis and guidance for best practice. Considering differences in resources and workflows of various clinical practice settings, the Professional Council of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine assembled this task group to develop a practice guideline on the same topic to provide a minimum standard that balances an appropriate level of safety and resource utilization. This medical physics practice guidelines (MPPG) thus provides a concise set of recommendations for medical physicists and other clinical staff regarding the review of treatment plans and patient charts while providing specific recommendations about who to be involved, and when/what to check in the chart review process. The recommendations, particularly those related to the initial plan review process, are critical for preventing errors and ensuring smooth clinical workflow. We believe that an effective review process for high‐risk items should include multiple layers with collective efforts across the department. Therefore, in this report, we make specific recommendations for various roles beyond medical physicists. The recommendations of this MPPG have been reviewed and endorsed by the American Society of Radiologic Technologists and the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

Purpose The recently published AAPM TG‐275 and the public review version of TG‐315 list new recommendations for comprehensive and minimum physics initial chart checks, respectively. This article addresses the potential development and benefit of initial chart check automation when these recommendations are implemented for clinical photon/electron EBRT. Methods Eight board‐certified physicists with 2–20 years of clinical experience performed initial chart checks using checklists from TG‐275 and TG‐315. Manual check times were estimated for three types of plans (IMRT/VMAT, 3D, and 2D) and for prostate, whole pelvis, lung, breast, head and neck, and brain cancers. An expert development team of three physicists re‐evaluated the automation feasibility of TG‐275 checklist based on their experience of developing and implementing the in‐house and the commercial automation tools in our institution. Three levels of initial chart check automation were simulated: (1) Auto_UMMS_tool (which consists of in‐house program and commercially available software); (2) Auto_TG275 (with full and partial automation as indicated in TG‐275); and (3) Auto_UMMS_exp (with full and partial automation as determined by our experts’ re‐evaluation). Results With no automation of initial chart checks, the ranges of manual check times were 29–56 min (full TG‐315 list) and 102–163 min (full TG‐275 list), which varied significantly with physicists but varied little at different tumor sites. The 69 of 71 checks which were considered as “not fully automated” in TG‐275 were re‐evaluated with more automation feasibility. Compared to no automation, the higher levels of automation yielded a great reduction in both manual check times (by 44%–98%) and potentially residual detectable errors (by 15–85%). Conclusion The initial chart check automation greatly improves the practicality and efficiency of implementing the new TG recommendations. Revisiting the TG reports with new technology/practice updates may help develop and utilize more automation clinically.

It is important to employ radiation dose reduction techniques in pediatric computed tomography (CT) to reduce potential risks of radiation‐induced malignancy. Automatic tube potential (kV) selection tools have been developed and become available on many CT scanners, which select the optimum kV based on the patient size and clinical task to improve the radiation dose efficiency. However, its use in pediatric CT has been mostly empirical, following manufacturer’s default recommendation without solid demonstration for quality improvement. This study aimed to implement an automatic tube potential tool (CAREkV, Siemens Healthcare) into routine pediatric CT practice, using the “Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act” quality improvement process, in place of an existing kV/mAs technique chart. The design of this quality improvement project involved Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act stages. Plan and Do stages identified the criteria for optimal automatic kV selection; a range of phantoms representing typical pediatric groups were scanned on a dual‐source 128‐slice scanner using a fast‐pitch scanning mode. The identified CAREkV settings were implemented into the CT protocol and evaluated after a 6‐month period. In the Study stage, an objective evaluation of the image metrics and radiation dose for two similar patient cohorts using CAREkV and the technique‐chart, respectively, were compared. The kV selected, image quality and radiation dose determined by CAREkV were comparable to those obtained while using the technique‐chart. The CAREkV was successfully implemented into our pediatric abdominopelvic CT practice. By utilizing the “PDSA” process optimal image quality and radiation dose reduction were achieved with an automatic kV selection tool to improve CT workflow.

Purpose/objectives To report our experience of combining three approaches of an automatic plan integrity check (APIC), a standard plan documentation, and checklist methods to minimize errors in the treatment planning process. Materials/methods We developed APIC program and standardized plan documentation via scripting in the treatment planning system, with an enforce function of APIC usage. We used a checklist method to check for communication errors in patient charts (referred to as chart errors). Any errors in the plans and charts (referred to as the planning errors) discovered during the initial chart check by the therapists were reported to our institutional Workflow Enhancement (WE) system. Clinical Implementation of these three methods is a progressive process while the APIC was the major progress among the three methods. Thus, we chose to compared the total number of planning errors before (including data from 2013 to 2014) and after (including data from 2015 to 2018) APIC implementation. We assigned the severity of these errors into five categories: serious (S), near miss with safety net (NM), clinical interruption (CLI), minor impediment (MI), and bookkeeping (BK). The Mann–Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 253 planning error forms, containing 272 errors, were submitted during the study period, representing an error rate of 3.8%, 3.1%, 2.1%, 0.8%, 1.9% and 1.3% of total number of plans in these years respectively. A marked reduction of planning error rate in the S and NM categories was statistically significant (P

Purpose The plan check tool (PCT) is the result of a multi‐institutional collaboration to jointly develop a flexible automated plan checking framework designed with the versatility to be shared across collaborating facilities while supporting the individual differences between practices. We analyze the effect that PCT has had on the efficiency and effectiveness of initial chart checks at our institution. Methods and Materials Data on errors identified during initial chart checks were acquired during two time periods: before the introduction of PCT in the clinic (6/24/2015 to 7/31/2015, 187 checks) and post‐clinical release (4/14/2016 to 5/2/2016, 186 checks). During each time period, human plan checkers were asked to record all issues that they either manually detected or that were detected by PCT as well as the amount of time, less breaks, or interruptions, it took to check each plan. Results After the clinical release of PCT, there was a statistically significant decrease in the number of issues recorded by the human plan checkers both related to checks explicitly performed by PCT (13 vs 50, P

The SARS‐CoV‐2 coronavirus pandemic has spread around the world including the United States. New York State has been hardest hit by the virus with over 380 000 citizens with confirmed COVID‐19, the illness associated with the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus. At our institution, the medical physics and dosimetry group developed a pandemic preparedness plan to ensure continued operation of our service. Actions taken included launching remote access to clinical systems for all dosimetrists and physicists, establishing lines of communication among staff members, and altering coverage schedules to limit on‐site presence and decrease risk of infection. The preparedness plan was activated March 23, 2020, and data were collected on treatment planning and chart checking efficiency for 6 weeks. External beam patient load decreased by 25% during the COVID‐19 crisis, and special procedures were almost entirely eliminated excepting urgent stereotactic radiosurgery or brachytherapy. Efficiency of treatment planning and chart checking was slightly better than a comparable 6‐week interval in 2019. This is most likely due to decreased patient load: Fewer plans to generate and more physicists available for checking without special procedure coverage. Physicists and dosimetrists completed a survey about their experience during the crisis and responded positively about the preparedness plan and their altered work arrangements, though technical problems and connectivity issues made the transition to remote work difficult. Overall, the medical physics and dosimetry group successfully maintained high‐quality, efficient care while minimizing risk to the staff by minimizing on‐site presence. Currently, the number of COVID‐19 cases in our area is decreasing, but the preparedness plan has demonstrated efficacy, and we will be ready to activate the plan should COVID‐19 return or an unknown virus manifest in the future.

The use of non‐coplanar radiation fields can potentially lead to collisions between the gantry and the couch or patient. The collisions are often not realized until the plan is finished and the fields are checked on the machine, or even later when the patient is already on the table. This paper presents an easy method of gauging if a collision is likely between the gantry and couch or patient during treatment planning. The method involves creating a chart of allowable gantry and couch combinations. The charts contain curves on a polar graph of the gantry and couch angle “plane”. The curves display the limits of collisions for each gantry and couch combination for vertical couch positions 10, 15 and 20 cm below isocenter and for couch lateral positions of −10,0, +10cm, covering the majority of couch positions encountered in patient treatments. All combinations in the region within the curves (containing the origin) are valid, while all combinations outside the curves will result in a collision. The data for the charts are collected from measurements of the gantry angle that just clears each couch angle. The patient presence was modeled by placing a stereotactic body frame on the top of the couch. Separate charts were created for couch angles between 0° and 90° and between 360° and 270° over all gantry angles. The graphs are easy to create, implement, and use in the clinic and help reduce the time, complications, and uncertainties of planning with non‐coplanar fields. PACS numbers: 87.55.‐x; 87.56.‐v

The initial physics chart check, an essential quality assurance process, verifies that the physician intent is properly expressed in the treatment plan, the treatment plan is reasonable, and the Record and Verify (RV) system properly captures the plan parameters. In this work the process was automated by characterizing the initial physics chart check as a universal set of steps, compartmentalized into intra‐plan and inter‐plan reviews. The intra‐plan review confirms the diagnosis‐prescription‐plan correlation, and verifies transfer accuracy of the signed treatment plan parameters into the RV system. The inter‐plan review tabulates all RV parameters for similar cases, and highlights outliers. The tabulation of RV parameters for similar cases enables a summation of experience across staff members, and facilitates a comparison using the Statistical Process Control (SPC) formalism. A summary sheet, added to each reviewed chart, automatically documents deviations noted during the review process. Forty‐five patient charts were analyzed using the software. The length of time for the entire initial chart‐checking process was reduced from about an hour to a few minutes. The code developed in this work allows the user to consider the big picture, trusting the software to track details. PACS number 89.20.Bb