BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine whether radiation therapists (RTTs) and radiation oncologists (ROs) believe RTTs can lead patient treatment reviews. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phase 1 involved the construction of a checklist of the procedures followed during RO treatment reviews. Phase 2 employed the checklist to monitor the frequency of review procedures. From these data, questionnaires regarding RTTs' ability to carry out these procedures to be used in Phase 3 were developed. The questionnaires were distributed to RTTs and ROs at two large public cancer centres. RESULTS: The majority of RTTs and ROs believed that RTTs could provide assurance and answer questions about side effects, treatment techniques, cancer, nutrition and logistics. ROs and RTTs agreed that RTTs were not capable of recommending medication or answering medical questions. Most RTTs thought they could decide if a patient should take a break from treatment if a standard protocol existed, but the ROs disagreed (P < 0.01). ROs believed that RTTs were capable of using the Common Toxicity Criteria system to grade side effects, but RTTs disagreed (P < 0.01). Concerns were raised about training, legalities, workloads, logistics, cost, patients' perspectives and remuneration. CONCLUSION: RTTs and ROs believed RTTs could lead treatment reviews with training, and support this role development.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine whether radiation therapists (RTTs) and radiation oncologists (ROs) believe RTTs can lead patient treatment reviews. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phase 1 involved the construction of a checklist of the procedures followed during RO treatment reviews. Phase 2 employed the checklist to monitor the frequency of review procedures. From these data, questionnaires regarding RTTs' ability to carry out these procedures to be used in Phase 3 were developed. The questionnaires were distributed to RTTs and ROs at two large public cancer centres. RESULTS: The majority of RTTs and ROs believed that RTTs could provide assurance and answer questions about side effects, treatment techniques, cancer, nutrition and logistics. ROs and RTTs agreed that RTTs were not capable of recommending medication or answering medical questions. Most RTTs thought they could decide if a patient should take a break from treatment if a standard protocol existed, but the ROs disagreed (P < 0.01). ROs believed that RTTs were capable of using the Common Toxicity Criteria system to grade side effects, but RTTs disagreed (P < 0.01). Concerns were raised about training, legalities, workloads, logistics, cost, patients' perspectives and remuneration. CONCLUSION: RTTs and ROs believed RTTs could lead treatment reviews with training, and support this role development.
Authors: Sharon M M Wong; S Y Sin; L H Lim; B M A Nurul Tassha; Jeannie Lin; K Melissa; W Y Koh; Francis Ho; Daniel S C Quah; Kiatissa Sommat; Jeffrey K L Tuan; F Y Wong; W L Ng; Richard M C Yeo; Y L Soong; Michael L C Wang Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-03-18
Authors: S Y Sin; Melvin L K Chua; Sharon M M Wong; K Sommat; X Y Lin; Y Y Ng; Y L Soong Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-09-04