Treatment Terminations During Radiation Therapy: A 10-Year Experience.

PURPOSE: Patients undergoing radiation therapy may terminate treatment for any number of reasons. The incidence of treatment termination (TT) during radiation therapy has not been studied. Herein, we present a cohort of TT at a large multicenter radiation oncology department over 10 years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: TTs between January 2013 and January 2023 were prospectively analyzed as part of an ongoing departmental quality and safety program. TT was defined as any premature discontinuation of therapy after initiating radiation planning. The rate of TT was calculated as a percentage of all patients starting radiation planning. All cases were presented at monthly morbidity and mortality conferences with a root cause reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 1448 TTs were identified out of 31,199 planned courses of care (4.6%). Six hundred eighty-six (47.4%) involved patients treated with curative intent, whereas 753 (52.0%) were treated with palliative intent, and 9 (0.6%) were treated for benign disease. The rate of TT decreased from 8.49% in 2013 to 3.02% in 2022, with rates decreasing yearly. The most common disease sites for TT were central nervous system (21.7%), head and neck (19.3%), thorax (17.5%), and bone (14.2%). The most common causes of TT were hospice and/or patient expiration (35.9%), patient choice unrelated to toxicity (35.2%), and clinician choice unrelated to toxicity (11.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This 10-year prospective review of TTs identified a year-over-year decrease in TTs as a percentage of planned patients. This decrease may be associated with the addition of root cause reviews for TTs and discussions monthly at morbidity and mortality rounds, coupled with departmental upstream quality initiatives implemented over time. Understanding the reasons behind TTs may help decrease preventable TTs. Although some TTs may be unavoidable, open discourse and quality improvement changes effectively reduce TT incidents over time.

Patient Experience Performance at a Primary Cancer Center Versus Affiliated Community Facilities.

Purpose: Patient experience tools are used throughout health care to evaluate physician and departmental performance. In radiation medicine, these tools are important in evaluating patient-specific metrics throughout their care journey. This study compared patient experience outcomes from a central tertiary cancer program with network clinics in a health care network. Methods and Materials: Radiation medicine patient experience surveys (Press Ganey, LLC) were collected from a central facility and 5 network locations from January 2017 through June 2021. Surveys were distributed to patients after treatment completion. The study cohort was divided into the central facility and satellites. Questions were converted to a 0 to 100 scale from the Likert scale (1-5). To compare scores between site types, 2-way analysis of variance tests for the significance of sites adjusted for years of operations and adjustments for multiple comparisons (Dunnett's test) were completed on each question. Results: The number of consecutively returned surveys analyzed was 3777; a response rate of 33.3% was observed. The central site conducted 117,583 linear accelerator, 1425 Gamma Knife, 273 stereotactic radiosurgery, and 830 stereotactic body radiation therapy procedures. All satellites combined conducted 76,788 linear accelerator, 131 Gamma Knife, 95 stereotactic radiosurgery, and 355 stereotactic body radiation therapy procedures. The central facility fared better than the satellites on "Convenience of parking" (95.9 vs 87.9; P = .0001) but worse in other domains of care. Conclusions: All sites yielded exemplary patient experience rates. Community clinics scored higher than the main campus. The higher scores at the network sites require a deeper analysis of factors influencing the central facility, as the survey did not account for varying patient volumes and disparities in care complexity across sites. Attributes to satellites include lower patient volumes and easily navigable layouts. These results counter the impression that increased resources at the main campus create a better patient experience relative to network clinics and suggest that high-volume tertiary facilities will require unique initiatives to improve the patient experience.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic Surge on Radiation Treatment: Report From a Multicenter New York Area Institution.

PURPOSE: During the COVID-19 surge months of March and April 2020, our New York multicenter health system experienced an influx of cases with COVID-19. We sought to study the impact of the surge period on patients with cancer prescribed radiation treatment (RT). METHODS: We reviewed our secure departmental quality assurance database for all patients who underwent RT planning simulations from March 6, 2020, through April 30, 2020. A priority level between 1 and 3 was prospectively assigned to each case based on faculty consensus to determine which patients required immediate RT. In May 2020, each faculty physician again retrospectively reviewed their patients from the database and provided additional commentary on how the COVID-19 pandemic had affected each patient's care. All statistics are descriptive. RESULTS: A total of 412 RT courses in 406 unique patients were simulated for linear accelerator-based external beam RT. The median age was 66 years. Treatment intent was curative in 70.6% and palliative in 29.4%. Of the 412 cases, 66.7% were priority 1, 25% priority 2, and 7.8% priority 3. Two hundred thirty-nine cases (58%) underwent standard-of-care diagnosis, workup, and treatment plan. Seventeen patients (4.1%) electively canceled their RT, and 17 others (4.1%) electively delayed RT start. Thirty-four (8.3%) were prescribed hypofractionation to shorten their RT course, and 22 (5.3%) had a change in modality. Incomplete or delayed workup was identified in 19 cases (4.6%). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic surge resulted in 42% of our patients having a non-standard-of-care pathway. This outcome demonstrates a significant impact of the COVID-19 crisis on routine cancer care.

Guidelines to Reduce Hospitalization Rates for Patients Receiving Curative-Intent Radiation Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report From a Multicenter New York Area Institution.

As the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic spreads around the globe, access to radiation therapy remains critical for patients with cancer. The priority for all radiation oncology departments is to protect the staff and to maintain operations in providing access to those patients requiring radiation therapy services. Patients with tumors of the aerodigestive tract and pelvis, among others, often experience toxicity during treatment, and there is a baseline risk that adverse effects may require hospital-based management. Routine care during weekly visits is important to guide patients through treatment and to mitigate against the need for hospitalization. Nevertheless, hospitalizations occur and there is a risk of nosocomial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 spread. During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, typical resources used to help manage patients, such as dental services, interventional radiology, rehabilitation, and others are limited or not at all available. Recognizing the need to provide access to treatment and the anticipated toxicity of such treatment, we have developed and implemented guidelines for clinical care management with the hope of avoiding added risk to our patients. If successful, these concepts may be integrated into our care directives in nonpandemic times.

Improving efficiency and safety in external beam radiation therapy treatment delivery using a Kaizen approach.

INTRODUCTION: Modern external beam radiation therapy treatment delivery processes potentially increase the number of tasks to be performed by therapists and thus opportunities for errors, yet the need to treat a large number of patients daily requires a balanced allocation of time per treatment slot. The goal of this work was to streamline the underlying workflow in such time-interval constrained processes to enhance both execution efficiency and active safety surveillance using a Kaizen approach. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Kaizen project was initiated by mapping the workflow within each treatment slot for 3 Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators. More than 90 steps were identified, and average execution times for each were measured. The time-consuming steps were stratified into a 2 × 2 matrix arranged by potential workflow improvement versus the level of corrective effort required. A work plan was created to launch initiatives with high potential for workflow improvement but modest effort to implement. Time spent on safety surveillance and average durations of treatment slots were used to assess corresponding workflow improvements. RESULTS: Three initiatives were implemented to mitigate unnecessary therapist motion, overprocessing of data, and wait time for data transfer defects, respectively. A fourth initiative was implemented to make the division of labor by treating therapists as well as peer review more explicit. The average duration of treatment slots reduced by 6.7% in the 9 months following implementation of the initiatives (P = .001). A reduction of 21% in duration of treatment slots was observed on 1 of the machines (P < .001). Time spent on safety reviews remained the same (20% of the allocated interval), but the peer review component increased. CONCLUSIONS: The Kaizen approach has the potential to improve operational efficiency and safety with quick turnaround in radiation therapy practice by addressing non-value-adding steps characteristic of individual department workflows. Higher effort opportunities are identified to guide continual downstream quality improvements.

Incident Learning and Failure-Mode-and-Effects-Analysis Guided Safety Initiatives in Radiation Medicine.

By combining incident learning and process failure-mode-and-effects-analysis (FMEA) in a structure-process-outcome framework we have created a risk profile for our radiation medicine practice and implemented evidence-based risk-mitigation initiatives focused on patient safety. Based on reactive reviews of incidents reported in our departmental incident-reporting system and proactive FMEA, high safety-risk procedures in our paperless radiation medicine process and latent risk factors were identified. Six initiatives aimed at the mitigation of associated severity, likelihood-of-occurrence, and detectability risks were implemented. These were the standardization of care pathways and toxicity grading, pre-treatment-planning peer review, a policy to thwart delay-rushed processes, an electronic whiteboard to enhance coordination, and the use of six sigma metrics to monitor operational efficiencies. The effectiveness of these initiatives over a 3-years period was assessed using process and outcome specific metrics within the framework of the department structure. There has been a 47% increase in incident-reporting, with no increase in adverse events. Care pathways have been used with greater than 97% clinical compliance rate. The implementation of peer review prior to treatment-planning and use of the whiteboard have provided opportunities for proactive detection and correction of errors. There has been a twofold drop in the occurrence of high-risk procedural delays. Patient treatment start delays are routinely enforced on cases that would have historically been rushed. Z-scores for high-risk procedures have steadily improved from 1.78 to 2.35. The initiatives resulted in sustained reductions of failure-mode risks as measured by a set of evidence-based metrics over a 3-years period. These augment or incorporate many of the published recommendations for patient safety in radiation medicine by translating them to clinical practice.