Todd F Atwood1, Derek W Brown2, James D Murphy2, Kevin L Moore2, Arno J Mundt2, Todd Pawlicki2. 1. Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: tfatwood@ucsd.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate a new clinical role for medical physicists in direct patient care with a prospective phase 2 clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical physicists participated in the Physics Direct Patient Care (PDPC) protocol, establishing independent professional relationships with radiation oncology patients. After attending a dedicated patient communication training program, medical physicists routinely met with patients for 2 physicist-patient consults to explain the treatment planning and delivery process, review the patient's treatment plan, and answer all technical questions. The first physicist-patient consult took place immediately before the computed tomography simulation, and the second took place immediately before the first treatment. Questionnaires were administered to each patient on the PDPC protocol at 3 time points to assess both anxiety and satisfaction. The first questionnaire was given shortly after the first physicist-patient consult, the second questionnaire was given shortly after the second physicist-patient consult, and the third questionnaire was given after the last treatment appointment, with no associated physicist-patient consult. RESULTS: The mean patient anxiety score was considered to be low at all questionnaire time points. There was a statistically significant decrease (P < .0001) in anxiety from the simulation time point to the first treatment time point. The mean patient technical satisfaction score was considered to be high at all measurement time points. There was a statistically significant increase (P = .0012) in technical satisfaction from the simulation time point to the first treatment time point. There was a statistically significant decrease (P < .023) in technical satisfaction from the first treatment time point to the last treatment time point. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing a new clinical role for medical physicists and investigating its effects on patient anxiety and satisfaction have created the foundation for future studies. Based on the results of this trial, the PDPC protocol will be expanded to a larger group of medical physicists, radiation oncologists, and patient disease sites and investigated with a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.
PURPOSE: To investigate a new clinical role for medical physicists in direct patient care with a prospective phase 2 clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical physicists participated in the Physics Direct Patient Care (PDPC) protocol, establishing independent professional relationships with radiation oncology patients. After attending a dedicated patient communication training program, medical physicists routinely met with patients for 2 physicist-patient consults to explain the treatment planning and delivery process, review the patient's treatment plan, and answer all technical questions. The first physicist-patient consult took place immediately before the computed tomography simulation, and the second took place immediately before the first treatment. Questionnaires were administered to each patient on the PDPC protocol at 3 time points to assess both anxiety and satisfaction. The first questionnaire was given shortly after the first physicist-patient consult, the second questionnaire was given shortly after the second physicist-patient consult, and the third questionnaire was given after the last treatment appointment, with no associated physicist-patient consult. RESULTS: The mean patientanxiety score was considered to be low at all questionnaire time points. There was a statistically significant decrease (P < .0001) in anxiety from the simulation time point to the first treatment time point. The mean patient technical satisfaction score was considered to be high at all measurement time points. There was a statistically significant increase (P = .0012) in technical satisfaction from the simulation time point to the first treatment time point. There was a statistically significant decrease (P < .023) in technical satisfaction from the first treatment time point to the last treatment time point. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing a new clinical role for medical physicists and investigating its effects on patientanxiety and satisfaction have created the foundation for future studies. Based on the results of this trial, the PDPC protocol will be expanded to a larger group of medical physicists, radiation oncologists, and patient disease sites and investigated with a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.
Authors: Elizabeth Huynh; Ahmed Hosny; Christian Guthier; Danielle S Bitterman; Steven F Petit; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Benjamin Kann; Hugo J W L Aerts; Raymond H Mak Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Derek W Brown; Todd F Atwood; Kevin L Moore; Robert MacAulay; James D Murphy; Arno J Mundt; Todd Pawlicki Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Laura Padilla; Whitney Burton Meleski; Caitlin Dominick; Caroline Athing; Cassidy L Jones; Dana Burns; Lauretta A Cathers; Emma C Fields Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Todd F Atwood; Narottam Lamichhane; Krisha Howell; Stephanie E Weiss; Louise Bird; Charles Pearson; Michael C Joiner; Michael M Dominello; Jay Burmeister Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Bradley W Schuller; Christina Burch; Theresa Casterton; Catie Crowther; Jordan Fowler; Matthew H Stenmark Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Todd F Atwood; Derek W Brown; Titania Juang; Kevin L Moore; Kristen A McConnell; Jennifer M Steers; James D Murphy; Arno J Mundt; Todd Pawlicki Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 2.102