Strategies for effective physics plan and chart review in radiation therapy: Report of AAPM Task Group 275.

BACKGROUND: While the review of radiotherapy treatment plans and charts by a medical physicist is a key component of safe, high-quality care, very few specific recommendations currently exist for this task. AIMS: The goal of TG-275 is to provide practical, evidence-based recommendations on physics plan and chart review for radiation therapy. While this report is aimed mainly at medical physicists, others may benefit including dosimetrists, radiation therapists, physicians and other professionals interested in quality management. METHODS: The scope of the report includes photon/electron external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), proton radiotherapy, as well as high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for gynecological applications (currently the highest volume brachytherapy service in most practices). The following review time points are considered: initial review prior to treatment, weekly review, and end-of-treatment review. The Task Group takes a risk-informed approach to developing recommendations. A failure mode and effects analysis was performed to determine the highest-risk aspects of each process. In the case of photon/electron EBRT, a survey of all American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) members was also conducted to determine current practices. A draft of this report was provided to the full AAPM membership for comment through a 3-week open-comment period, and the report was revised in response to these comments. RESULTS: The highest-risk failure modes included 112 failure modes in photon/electron EBRT initial review, 55 in weekly and end-of-treatment review, 24 for initial review specific to proton therapy, and 48 in HDR brachytherapy. A 103-question survey on current practices was released to all AAPM members who self-reported as working in the radiation oncology field. The response rate was 33%. The survey data and risk data were used to inform recommendations. DISCUSSION: Tables of recommended checks are presented and recommendations for best practice are discussed. Suggestions to software vendors are also provided. CONCLUSIONS: TG-275 provides specific recommendations for physics plan and chart review which should enhance the safety and quality of care for patients receiving radiation treatments.

Patterns of practice for safety-critical processes in radiation oncology in the United States from the AAPM safety profile assessment survey.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to report an overview of the patterns of practice for safety-critical processes in radiation oncology clinics in the United States. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Safety Profile Assessment (spa.aapm.org), developed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, was released in July 2013. It consists of 92 indicator questions designed to assess the safety and quality of radiation oncology operations. By December 2014, 114 surveys had been completed by clinics within the United States. This database was analyzed to identify those indicators of safety and quality performance with which there was the highest degree of compliance and those indicators with which there was the least. Additionally, we assessed the extent to which key clinical activities were supported by formal policies. Voluntary post assessment surveys were completed by 86 respondents (75%). RESULTS: The mean number of patients treated per day on external beam radiation therapy devices was 64 (range, 8-600) in the clinics that responded to the survey. The average overall score for the 92 SPA indicator questions was 1.45 (range, 1.00-2.78) on a 5-point scale, with 1 being the most positive. Those indicators that were associated with the highest levels of compliance are dominated by activities that are either strongly recommended, regulated, or associated with revenue generation. Surprisingly, several of those indicators for which there was the least compliance relate to activities that are known to have contributed to serious radiation therapy misadministrations in the past. Formal policies, which are widely regarded as a backbone of a safe clinical system, were reported as lacking for some safety-critical procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall this analysis demonstrated reasonable performance across participating departments, several important areas for improvement were identified. The results may guide the allocation of resources both at the level of individual departments and at the professional society level.

Safety Profile Assessment: An online tool to gauge safety-critical performance in radiation oncology.

PURPOSE: It is challenging for the radiation oncology practitioner to manage and implement the plethora of recently generated recommendations on quality and safety improvement. The online Safety Profile Assessment (SPA) tool uses an easy-to-use question-and-answer format to assess safety/quality within a clinic, provide a way to benchmark against peers, and facilitate improvement. This report describes the design and development of the SPA and experience from the first year of use. METHODS: Performance indicators for the SPA were derived from 4 foundations: the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a review of 7 recent authoritative documents specific to radiation oncology, a recent American Association of Physicists in Medicine report on incident learning, and the American College of Radiology-American Society for Radiation Oncology accreditation system as of 2011. After pilot testing, the free-access tool was launched through the American Association of Physicists in Medicine website (http://spa.aapm.org) in July 2013. Questionnaire data were collected to assess the experience of users. RESULTS: The SPA tool consists of 92 indicators designed to probe safety and quality. A clinic's performance is benchmarked against all other responses in the database, and aided by a downloadable log, quality/safety improvement strategies can be developed and tracked over time. At the time this paper was written, 279 individuals had registered, and 107 had completed the SPA. On average, the SPA required 1.3 hours to complete. The majority of respondents to the questionnaire (56%) completed the SPA with a multidisciplinary group of 4 people on average. Respondents noted that the SPA was easy or very easy to use (70%) and that they would definitely or very probably complete it again (63%). CONCLUSIONS: SPA provides a straightforward means of gauging a clinic's performance in key safety-critical areas and has been evaluated favorably by the first cohort of users. The tool has been qualified by the American Board of Radiology (ABR) as meeting the criteria for Practice Quality Improvement requirements of the ABR Maintenance of Certification Program.