Using Discrete-Event Simulation to Promote Quality Improvement and Efficiency in a Radiation Oncology Treatment Center.

BACKGROUND: To meet demand for radiation oncology services and ensure patient-centered safe care, management in an academic radiation oncology department initiated quality improvement efforts using discrete-event simulation (DES). Although the long-term goal was testing and deploying solutions, the primary aim at the outset was characterizing and validating a computer simulation model of existing operations to identify targets for improvement. METHODS: The adoption and validation of a DES model of processes and procedures affecting patient flow and satisfaction, employee experience, and efficiency were undertaken in 2012-2013. Multiple sources were tapped for data, including direct observation, equipment logs, timekeeping, and electronic health records. RESULTS: During their treatment visits, patients averaged 50.4 minutes in the treatment center, of which 38% was spent in the treatment room. Patients with appointments between 10 AM and 2 PM experienced the longest delays before entering the treatment room, and those in the clinic in the day's first and last hours, the shortest (<5 minutes). Despite staffed for 14.5 hours daily, the clinic registered only 20% of patients after 2:30 PM. Utilization of equipment averaged 58%, and utilization of staff, 56%. CONCLUSION: The DES modeling quantified operations, identifying evidence-based targets for next-phase remediation and providing data to justify initiatives.

Determinants of patient satisfaction during receipt of radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the correlations and relative contributions of components of a radiation oncology-specific patient satisfaction survey to their overall satisfaction scores. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From September 2006 through August 2012, we prospectively collected data from 8069 patients receiving radiation treatments with a 26-question survey. Each question was rated on a 10-point Likert scale. We analyzed the correlation between scores for each question and the overall satisfaction question. We also dichotomized the scores to reflect satisfaction versus dissatisfaction and used logistic regression to assess the relationship between items in 4 domains (the patient-provider relationship, access and environmental issues, wait times, and educational information) and overall satisfaction. RESULTS: Scores on all questions correlated with overall patient satisfaction scores (P<.0001). Satisfaction with patient-provider relationships had the greatest influence on overall satisfaction (R(2)=0.4219), followed by wait times (R(2)=0.4000), access/environment (R(2)=0.3837), and patient education (R(2)=0.3700). The specific variables with the greatest effect on patient satisfaction were the care provided by radiation therapists (odds ratio 1.91) and pain management (odds ratio 1.29). CONCLUSIONS: We found that patients' judgment of provider relationships in an outpatient radiation oncology setting were the greatest contributors to their overall satisfaction ratings. Other measures typically associated with patient satisfaction (phone access, scheduling, and ease of the check-in process) correlated less strongly with overall satisfaction. These findings may be useful for other practices preparing to assess patient ratings of quality of care.

Treatment planning with protons for pediatric retinoblastoma, medulloblastoma, and pelvic sarcoma: how do protons compare with other conformal techniques?

PURPOSE: To calculate treatment plans and compare the dose distributions and dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for photon three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), electron therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and standard (nonintensity modulated) proton therapy in three pediatric disease sites. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The tumor volumes from 8 patients (3 retinoblastomas, 2 medulloblastomas, and 3 pelvic sarcomas) were studied retrospectively to compare DVHs from proton therapy with 3D-CRT, electron therapy, and IMRT. In retinoblastoma, several planning techniques were analyzed: A single electron appositional beam was compared with a single 3D-CRT lateral beam, a 3D-CRT anterior beam paired with a lateral beam, IMRT, and protons. In medulloblastoma, three posterior fossa irradiation techniques were analyzed: 3D-CRT, IMRT, and protons. Craniospinal irradiation (which consisted of composite plans of both the posterior fossa and craniospinal components) was also evaluated, primarily comparing spinal irradiation using 3D-CRT electrons, 3D-CRT photons, and protons. Lastly, in pelvic sarcoma, 3D-CRT, IMRT, and proton plans were assessed. RESULTS: In retinoblastoma, protons resulted in the best target coverage combined with the most orbital bone sparing (10% was the mean orbital bone volume irradiated at > or =5 Gy for protons vs. 25% for 3D-CRT electrons, 69% for IMRT, 41% for a single 3D lateral beam, 51% for a 3D anterolateral beam with a lens block, and 65% for a 3D anterolateral beam without a lens block). A single appositional electron field was the next best technique followed by other planning approaches. In medulloblastoma, for posterior fossa and craniospinal irradiation, protons resulted in the least dose to the cochlea (for only posterior fossa irradiation at > or =20 Gy, 34% was the mean cochlear volume irradiated for protons, 87% for IMRT, 89% for 3D-CRT) and hypothalamus-pituitary axis (for only posterior fossa irradiation at > or =10 Gy, 21% was the mean hypothalamus-pituitary volume irradiated for protons, 81% for IMRT, 91% for 3D-CRT); additional dose reductions to the optic chiasm, eyes, vertebrae, mandible, thyroid, lung, kidneys, heart, and liver were seen. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy appeared to be the second best technique for posterior fossa irradiation. For spinal irradiation 3D-CRT electrons were better than 3D-CRT photons in sparing dose to the thyroid, heart, lung, kidney, and liver. With pelvic sarcoma, protons were superior in eliminating any dose to the ovaries (0% of mean ovarian volume was irradiated at > or =2 Gy with protons) and to some extent, the pelvic bones and vertebrae. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy did show more bladder dose reduction than the other techniques in pelvic sarcoma irradiation. CONCLUSIONS: In the diseases studied, using various techniques of 3D-CRT, electrons, IMRT, and protons, protons are most optimal in treating retinoblastomas, medulloblastomas (posterior fossa and craniospinal), and pelvic sarcomas. Protons delivered superior target dose coverage and sparing of normal structures. As dose-volume parameters are expected to correlate with acute and late toxicity, proton therapy should receive serious consideration as the preferred technique for the treatment of pediatric tumors.