Conroy, Leigh

AbstractBackgroundSimulated error training is a method to practice error detection in situations where the occurrence of error is low. Such is the case for the physics plan and chart review where a physicist may check several plans before encountering a significant problem. By simulating potentially hazardous errors, physicists can become familiar with how they manifest and learn from mistakes made during a simulated plan review.PurposeThe purpose of this project was to develop a series of training datasets that allows medical physicists and trainees to practice plan and chart reviews in a way that is familiar and accessible, and to provide exposure to the various failure modes (FMs) encountered in clinical scenarios.MethodsA series of training datasets have been developed that include a variety of embedded errors based on the risk‐assessment performed by American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 275 for the physics plan and chart review. The training datasets comprise documentation, screen shots, and digital content derived from common treatment planning and radiation oncology information systems and are available via the Cloud‐based platform ProKnow.ResultsOverall, 20 datasets have been created incorporating various software systems (Mosaiq, ARIA, Eclipse, RayStation, Pinnacle) and delivery techniques. A total of 110 errors representing 50 different FMs were embedded with the 20 datasets. The project was piloted at the 2021 AAPM Annual Meeting in a workshop where participants had the opportunity to review cases and answer survey questions related to errors they detected and their perception of the project's efficacy. In general, attendees detected higher‐priority FMs at a higher rate, though no correlation was found between detection rate and the detectability of the FMs. Familiarity with a given system appeared to play a role in detecting errors, specifically when related to missing information at different locations within a given software system. Overall, 96% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the ProKnow portal and training datasets were effective as a training tool, and 75% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they planned to use the tool at their local institution.ConclusionsThe datasets and digital platform provide a standardized and accessible tool for training, performance assessment, and continuing education regarding the physics plan and chart review. Work is ongoing to expand the project to include more modalities, radiation oncology treatment planning and information systems, and FMs based on emerging techniques such as auto‐contouring and auto‐planning.

AbstractBackgroundAAPM Task Group (TG) 275 was charged with developing practical, evidence‐based recommendations for physics plan and chart review clinical processes for radiation therapy. As part of this charge, and to characterize practices and clinical processes, a survey of the medical physics community was developed and conducted. Detailed analyses and trends based on the survey that exceeded TG report length constraints are presented herein.AimsThe design, development, and detailed results of the TG‐ 275 survey as well as statistical analysis and trends are described in detail. This is complementary material to the TG 275 report.Methods and materialsThe survey consisted of 100 multiple‐choice questions divided into four main sections: 1) Demographics, 2) Initial Plan Check, 3) On‐Treatment, and 4) End‐of‐Treatment Chart Check. The survey was released to all AAPM members who self‐reported working in the radiation oncology field, and it was kept open for 7 weeks. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. To study practice differences, tests of association were performed using data grouped by four demographic questions: 1) Institution Type, 2) Average number of patients treated daily, 3) Radiation Oncology Electronic Medical Record, and 4) Perceived Culture of Safety.ResultsThe survey captured 1370 non‐duplicate entries from the United States and Canada. Differences across practices were grouped and presented based on Process‐Based and Check‐Specific questions. A risk‐based summary was created to show differences amongst the four demographic questions for checks associated with the highest risk failure modes identified by TG‐275.ConclusionThe TG‐275 survey captured a baseline of practices on initial plan, on‐treatment, and end‐of‐treatment checks across a wide variety of clinics and institutions. The results of test of association showed practice heterogeneities as a function of demographic characteristics. Survey data were successfully used to inform TG‐275 recommendations.

AbstractThe American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the US. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the US. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: Must and must not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. While must is the term to be used in the guidelines, if an entity that adopts the guideline has shall as the preferred term, the AAPM considers that must and shall have the same meaning. Should and should not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

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.