Schofield, Deborah

Abstract Background Burnout is a work‐related syndrome characterized by increased levels of emotional exhaustion (EE) and depersonalization (DP) along with decreased levels of personal achievement. In the healthcare setting, higher burnout levels have been associated with negative impacts on personnel, an increased risk of errors, and a decrease in the quality of delivered care. Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of burnout among medical physicists working in the United States. Additionally, the impact of personal and organizational features on burnout risk was examined. Methods The anonymous survey was distributed to 1962 full members of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The survey consisted of seven demographic questions, the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), and an organizational assessment tool. Burnout risk was evaluated using two different scoring methods. Inferential statistics were employed to examine the relationship between burnout and personal features, such as practiced sub‐specialty, and organizational features, including the respondent's assigned facility safety score. Results A total of 337 responses were received, and 59.9% of medical physicist participants scored high on at least one burnout domain. A statistically significant association was found between the EE and DP burnout domains and personal factors, including working as a therapy medical physicist, working longer hours, and a moderate or significant impact on work‐related feelings due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. A statistically significant relationship was identified between all three burnout domains and the respondent's assigned facility safety score. Amongst therapy physicists, an inverse relationship was observed between all three burnout domains and both the teamwork and staffing constructs, as well as the open communication and punitive concerns construct. Conclusions Medical physicists in the United States are experiencing significant levels of burnout. Importantly, this study identified a link between quantitative burnout scores and facility safety, stressing the importance of addressing burnout.

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.

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.