Citations

Abstract Electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) have been in widespread clinical use for almost two decades due to favorable measurement characteristics such as fast image acquisition, high sensitivity and resolution, digital data format, long‐term stability, linear dose response, and large detection area. On‐board EPIDs are widely used as a quality assurance (QA) tool to monitor nearly every aspect of linear accelerator (linac) performance. In both the commercial QA equipment market and in clinical practice, there is a trend toward replacing conventional QA approaches with fully automated, EPID‐based QA tools. Despite widespread use, EPIDs are complex devices, and there has yet to be consensus or formal recommendations published by the AAPM for their use in routine linac QA. Task Group 330 (TG‐330) was, therefore, formed to provide guidelines and recommendations for physicists on the safe and appropriate use of EPIDs for linac QA. In particular, the report: (a) provides a comprehensive review of the characteristics and limitations of EPIDs as time‐resolved measurement devices and dosimeters; (b) summarizes the application of EPIDs for linac QA; (c) provides recommendations on efficient and effective implementations of EPID‐based QA techniques; (d) describes risks associated with the use of EPIDs for linac QA and provides examples of how risk analysis can be used to ensure the safe use of EPIDs for linac QA. Many of the guidelines in this report are drawn from the literature that is included in the references and from the collective experience of the task group members. This report does not provide recommendations on the implementation of EPID‐based patient‐specific IMRT or VMAT QA, which is the topic of AAPM's report from AAPM TG‐307.

This article reports on a study to assess the feasibility of research procedures and acceptability of QBSAFE, a set of conversation cards focused on quality of life, treatment burden, safety, and avoidance of future events in people with type 2 diabetes. The study enrolled 84 patients and 7 clinicians. Of the 58 patients who completed questionnaires, 64% agreed that the QBSAFE agenda-setting kit (ASK) helped them discuss their situation, 78% agreed that others could benefit from it, and 38% said they would use it again. Most clinicians felt confident responding to issues (in 89% of encounters) and said they would use the kit again (78%) and recommend it to colleagues (82%). The QBSAFE ASK can be feasibly implemented and holds promise in facilitating discussion and collaborative problem-solving.

Children with rare or life-limiting chronic conditions and their families are at high risk of psychosocial distress. However, despite its impact on patient and family health and functioning, psychosocial distress and its antecedents may not routinely be captured in medical records. The purpose of this study was to characterize current medical record documentation practices around psychosocial distress among children with rare or life-limiting chronic conditions and their families. Medical records for patients with rare or life-limiting chronic conditions (n = 60) followed by a pediatric complex care program were reviewed. Study team members extracted both structured data elements (e.g., diagnoses, demographic information) and note narratives from the most recent visit with a clinician in the program. Psychosocial topics were analyzed using a mixed quantitative (i.e., frequency counts of topics) and qualitative approach. Topics related to psychosocial distress that were documented in notes included child and parent emotional problems, parent social support, sibling emotional or physical problems, family structure (e.g., whether parents were together), and financial concerns. However, 35% of notes lacked any mention of psychosocial concerns. Although examples of psychosocial concerns were included in some notes, none were present in over one-third of this sample. For both patients with rare or life-limiting chronic conditions and their caregivers, more active elicitation and standard documentation of psychosocial concerns may improve the ability of healthcare providers to identify and intervene on psychosocial concerns and their risk factors.

Abstract Purpose: Diabetes care has largely focused on reducing the risk of complications by achieving hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) targets; yet, whole-person care may be more effective and desirable. We sought to determine the nature of discussions about quality of life, burden of treatment, hypoglycemia, sexual function, and social support during diabetes-focused clinical encounters.Methods: We analyzed 41 previously recorded clinical encounters with patients with type 2 diabetes from the control arms of practice-based trials of shared decision making. Two coders evaluated videos for discussions about aspects of life with diabetes: quality of life, burden of treatment, hypoglycemia, sexual function, and social supports. When an aspect was raised, coders evaluated the nature of the conversation, clinician responses, and time spent on discussing the aspect. Results: Median length of the encounter was 15 minutes, 6 seconds (IQR: 11:16 – 20:23 minutes). Thirty five of 41 encounters (85.4%), included some discussion of quality of life (58.5%), burden of treatment (51.2%), social support (2.4%), or hypoglycemia (9.8%). Sexual function was not discussed. On average, 4.5% (1.4%-5.5%) of the encounter time involved conversations about HbA1c whereas 15.0% (0%-25%) of the encounter was spent on some aspect of quality of life, burden of treatment, social support, or hypoglycemia. If a topic related to quality of life was raised, clinicians most often responded by acknowledging patient’s concern without providing a solution (45.8%). Conclusions: A significant part of the patient-clinician encounter involves discussion of quality of life and burden of treatment, but clinicians rarely address these issues by providing solutions.