PURPOSE: To increase intraprocedural efficiency in the use of clinical resources and to decrease planning time for cervical cancer brachytherapy treatments through redesign of the procedure's process map. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multidisciplinary team identified all tasks and associated resources involved in cervical cancer brachytherapy in our institution and arranged them in a process map. A redesign of the treatment planning component of the process map was conducted with the goal of minimizing planning time. Planning time was measured on 20 consecutive insertions, of which 10 were performed with standard procedures and 10 with the redesigned process map, and results were compared. Statistical significance (p < 0.05) was measured with a two-tailed t test. RESULTS: Twelve tasks involved in cervical cancer brachytherapy treatments were identified. The process map showed that in standard procedures, the treatment planning tasks were performed sequentially. The process map was redesigned to specify that contouring and some planning tasks are performed concomitantly. Some quality assurance tasks were reorganized to minimize adverse effects of a possible error on procedure time. Test dry runs followed by live implementation confirmed the applicability of the new process map to clinical conditions. A 29% reduction in planning time (p < 0.01) was observed with the introduction of the redesigned process map. CONCLUSIONS: A process map for cervical cancer brachytherapy was generated. The treatment planning component of the process map was redesigned, resulting in a 29% decrease in planning time and a streamlining of the quality assurance process.
PURPOSE: To increase intraprocedural efficiency in the use of clinical resources and to decrease planning time for cervical cancer brachytherapy treatments through redesign of the procedure's process map. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multidisciplinary team identified all tasks and associated resources involved in cervical cancer brachytherapy in our institution and arranged them in a process map. A redesign of the treatment planning component of the process map was conducted with the goal of minimizing planning time. Planning time was measured on 20 consecutive insertions, of which 10 were performed with standard procedures and 10 with the redesigned process map, and results were compared. Statistical significance (p < 0.05) was measured with a two-tailed t test. RESULTS: Twelve tasks involved in cervical cancer brachytherapy treatments were identified. The process map showed that in standard procedures, the treatment planning tasks were performed sequentially. The process map was redesigned to specify that contouring and some planning tasks are performed concomitantly. Some quality assurance tasks were reorganized to minimize adverse effects of a possible error on procedure time. Test dry runs followed by live implementation confirmed the applicability of the new process map to clinical conditions. A 29% reduction in planning time (p < 0.01) was observed with the introduction of the redesigned process map. CONCLUSIONS: A process map for cervical cancer brachytherapy was generated. The treatment planning component of the process map was redesigned, resulting in a 29% decrease in planning time and a streamlining of the quality assurance process.
Authors: Julian R Perks; Sinisa Stanic; Robin L Stern; Barbara Henk; Marsha S Nelson; Rick D Harse; Mathew Mathai; James A Purdy; Richard K Valicenti; Allan D Siefkin; Allen M Chen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David K Gaffney; Andreas Du Bois; Kailash Narayan; Nick Reed; Takafumi Toita; Sandro Pignata; Peter Blake; Lorraine Portelance; Azmat Sadoyze; Richard Pötter; Alessandro Colombo; Marcus Randall; Mansoor R Mirza; Edward L Trimble Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-03-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Akila N Viswanathan; Sushil Beriwal; Jennifer F De Los Santos; D Jeffrey Demanes; David Gaffney; Jorgen Hansen; Ellen Jones; Christian Kirisits; Bruce Thomadsen; Beth Erickson Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Jacob C Lindegaard; Kari Tanderup; Søren Kynde Nielsen; Søren Haack; John Gelineck Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-01-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Cyrus Chargari; Nicolas Magné; Isabelle Dumas; Taha Messai; Lisa Vicenzi; Norman Gillion; Philippe Morice; Christine Haie-Meder Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-09-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M Saiful Huq; Benedick A Fraass; Peter B Dunscombe; John P Gibbons; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Arno J Mundt; Sasa Mutic; Jatinder R Palta; Frank Rath; Bruce R Thomadsen; Jeffrey F Williamson; Ellen D Yorke Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Nicole L Casanova; Amy M LeClair; Victoria Xiao; Katelyn R Mullikin; Stephenie C Lemon; Karen M Freund; Jennifer S Haas; Rachel A Freedman; Tracy A Battaglia Journal: Cancer Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Kara N Durski; Dhamari Naidoo; Shalini Singaravelu; Anita A Shah; Mamadou Harouna Djingarey; Pierre Formenty; Chikwe Ihekweazu; James Banjura; Benoit Kebela; Adesola Yinka-Ogunleye; Ibrahima-Soce Fall; Womi Eteng; Mohamed Vandi; Charles Keimbe; Anwar Abubakar; Abulazeez Mohammed; Desmond E Williams; Margaret Lamunu; Sylvie Briand; Jean Claude Changa Changa; Etienne Minkoulou; Dan Jernigan; Demba Lubambo; Asheena Khalakdina; Ibrahim Mamadu; Ambrose Talisuna; Albert Mbule Kadiobo; Amara Jambai; Bruce Aylward; Michael Osterholm Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2020-10