Program Information
Medical Physics Practices for Plan and Chart Review: Results of AAPM Task Group 275 Survey
L Fong de los Santos1*, L Dong2 , A Greener3 , J Johnson4 , P Johnson5 , G Kim6 , J Mechalakos7 , B Napolitano8 , S Parker9 , D Schofield10 , M Wells11 , E Yorke7 , E Ford12 , (1) Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, (2) Scripps Proton Therapy Center, San Diego, CA, (3) VA Medical Center, East Orange, NJ, (4) UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, (5) University of Miami, Miami, FL, (6) University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, (7) Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, (8) Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, (9) Novant Health, Winston Salem, NC, (10) Saint Vincent Hospital, Acton, MA, (11) Piedmont Hospital, Atlanta, GA, (12) University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Presentations
TU-D-201-2 (Tuesday, August 2, 2016) 11:00 AM - 12:15 PM Room: 201
Purpose: AAPM Task Group (TG) 275 is charged with developing risk-based guidelines for plan and chart review clinical processes. As part of this work an AAPM-wide survey was conducted to gauge current practices.
Methods: The survey consisted of 103 multiple-choice questions covering the following review processes for external beam including protons: 1) Initial Plan Check, 2) On-Treatment and 3) End-of-Treatment Chart Check. The survey was designed and validated by TG members with the goal of providing an efficient and easy response process. The survey, developed and deployed with the support of AAPM headquarters, was released to all AAPM members who have self-reported as working in the radiation oncology field and it was kept open for 7 weeks.
Results: There are an estimated 4700 eligible participants. At the time of writing, 962 completed surveys have been collected with an average completion time of 24 minutes. Participants are mainly from community hospitals (40%), academic-affiliated hospitals (31%) and free-standing clinics (18%). Among many other metrics covered on the survey, results so far indicate that manual review is an important component on the plan and chart review process (>90%) and that written procedures and checklists are widely used (>60%). However, the details of what is reviewed or checked are fairly heterogeneous among the sampled medical physics community.
Conclusion: The data gathered from the survey gauging current practices will be used by TG 275 to develop benchmarks and recommendations for the type and extent of checks to perform effective physics plan and chart review processes.
Contact Email: