H Harold Li1, Yu Wu2, Deshan Yang2, Sasa Mutic2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri. Electronic address: hli@radonc.wustl.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physics chart check has long been a central quality assurance (QC) measure in radiation oncology. The purpose of this work is to describe a software tool that aims to accomplish simplification, standardization, automation, and forced functions in the process. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nationally recognized guidelines, including American College of Radiology and American Society for Radiation Oncology guidelines and technical standards, and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group reports were identified, studied, and summarized. Meanwhile, the reported events related to physics chart check service were analyzed using an event reporting and learning system. A number of shortfalls in the chart check process were identified. To address these problems, a software tool was designed and developed under Microsoft. Net in C# to hardwire as many components as possible at each stage of the process. RESULTS: The software consists of the following 4 independent modules: (1) chart check management; (2) pretreatment and during treatment chart check assistant; (3) posttreatment chart check assistant; and (4) quarterly peer-review management. The users were a large group of physicists in the author's radiation oncology clinic. During over 1 year of use the tool has proven very helpful in chart checking management, communication, documentation, and maintaining consistency. CONCLUSIONS: The software tool presented in this work aims to assist physicists at each stage of the physics chart check process. The software tool is potentially useful for any radiation oncology clinics that are either in the process of pursuing or maintaining the American College of Radiology accreditation.
PURPOSE: Physics chart check has long been a central quality assurance (QC) measure in radiation oncology. The purpose of this work is to describe a software tool that aims to accomplish simplification, standardization, automation, and forced functions in the process. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nationally recognized guidelines, including American College of Radiology and American Society for Radiation Oncology guidelines and technical standards, and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group reports were identified, studied, and summarized. Meanwhile, the reported events related to physics chart check service were analyzed using an event reporting and learning system. A number of shortfalls in the chart check process were identified. To address these problems, a software tool was designed and developed under Microsoft. Net in C# to hardwire as many components as possible at each stage of the process. RESULTS: The software consists of the following 4 independent modules: (1) chart check management; (2) pretreatment and during treatment chart check assistant; (3) posttreatment chart check assistant; and (4) quarterly peer-review management. The users were a large group of physicists in the author's radiation oncology clinic. During over 1 year of use the tool has proven very helpful in chart checking management, communication, documentation, and maintaining consistency. CONCLUSIONS: The software tool presented in this work aims to assist physicists at each stage of the physics chart check process. The software tool is potentially useful for any radiation oncology clinics that are either in the process of pursuing or maintaining the American College of Radiology accreditation.
Authors: Scott W Hadley; Marc L Kessler; Dale W Litzenberg; Choonik Lee; Jim Irrer; Xiaoping Chen; Eduardo Acosta; Grant Weyburne; Wayne Keranen; Kwok Lam; Elizabeth Covington; Kelly C Younge; Martha M Matuszak; Jean M Moran Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Elizabeth L Covington; Xiaoping Chen; Kelly C Younge; Choonik Lee; Martha M Matuszak; Marc L Kessler; Wayne Keranen; Eduardo Acosta; Ashley M Dougherty; Stephanie E Filpansick; Jean M Moran Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Shi Liu; Karl K Bush; Julian Bertini; Yabo Fu; Jonathan M Lewis; Daniel J Pham; Yong Yang; Thomas R Niedermayr; Lawrie Skinner; Lei Xing; Beth M Beadle; Annie Hsu; Nataliya Kovalchuk Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Ping Xia; Danielle LaHurd; Peng Qi; Anthony Mastroianni; Daesung Lee; Anthony Magnelli; Eric Murray; Matt Kolar; Bingqi Guo; Tim Meier; Samual T Chao; John H Suh; Naichang Yu Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 2.102