Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:50:21.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Radiation therapists’ compliance to a palliative imaging protocol: a case report

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2018

J. Cvetkova ,
T. O’Donovan ,
A. Craig  and
L. Mullaney
J. Cvetkova
Affiliation:
Applied Radiation Therapy Trinity, Discipline of Radiation Therapy, School of Medicine, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
T. O’Donovan
Affiliation:
Radiation Oncology Department, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
A. Craig
Affiliation:
Applied Radiation Therapy Trinity, Discipline of Radiation Therapy, School of Medicine, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
L. Mullaney*
Affiliation:
Applied Radiation Therapy Trinity, Discipline of Radiation Therapy, School of Medicine, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
*
Correspondence to: Laura Mullaney, Discipline of Radiation Therapy, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Building for Health Sciences, St James’s Hospital Campus, Dublin 8, Ireland. Tel: +353 1 896 3254. E-mail: laura.mullaney@tcd.ie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Imaging protocols are implemented to identify and minimise set-up errors. A crucial component to the success of these protocols is staff compliance.

Materials and methods

This is case report describing a retrospective review of radiation therapists’ compliance to a palliative imaging protocol in a single large institution in one calendar year.

Results

The review showed a non-compliance to protocol for 8% of treatments. The most frequent protocol deviation was a failure to calculate the mean set-up displacement after 2/3 days of consecutive imaging.

Conclusion

Despite the presence of institutional evidence-based palliative imaging protocol unwanted deviations in practice can occur.

Keywords

imaging protocols and palliative radiotherapypalliative imagingquality assurancetreatment verification
Type
Case Study
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 253 - 256
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Stratford, J, Ball, K, Henry, A M et al. Radiotherapy treatment verification in the UK: an audit of practice in 2004. Clin Oncol 2006; 18 (1): 15–22.Google Scholar
2. The Royal College of Radiologists SaCoR, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. On Target: Ensuring Geometric Accuracy in Radiotherapy. London: The Royal College of Radiologists, 2008.Google Scholar
3. The Royal College of Radiologists SaCoR, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. Towards Safer Radiotherapy. London: The Royal College of Radiologists, 2008.Google Scholar
4. Peters, L J, O’Sullivan, B, Giralt, J et al. Critical impact of radiotherapy protocol compliance and quality in the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer: results from TROG 02.02. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28 (18): 2996–3001.Google Scholar
5. Hurkmans, C W, Remeijer, P, Lebesque, J V, Mijnheer, B J. Set-up verification using portal imaging; review of current clinical practice. Radiother Oncol 2001; 58 (2): 105–120.Google Scholar
6. Giraud, P, De Rycke, Y, Rosenwald, J-C, Cosset, J-M. Conformal radiotherapy planning for lung cancer: analysis of set-up uncertainties. Cancer Invest 2007; 25 (1): 38–46.Google Scholar
7. Kataria, T, Abhishek, A, Chadha, P, Nandigam, J. Set-up uncertainties: online correction with X-ray volume imaging. J Cancer Res Ther 2011; 7 (1): 40.Google Scholar