Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T19:47:32.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring and improving radiotherapy delivery efficiency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2022

Amy Cooke Open the ORCID record for Amy Cooke [Opens in a new window]  and
Catherine Holborn
Amy Cooke*
Affiliation:
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
Catherine Holborn
Affiliation:
Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Amy Cooke, Radiotherapy, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO16 6YD, UK E-mail: amy.shaw@uhs.nhs.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

The researcher’s centre was in a unique position of merging with another established radiotherapy centre to create a Satellite Site. It was noted that the Satellite Site delivered more fractions per linac within the same working day profile as the Main Site. Subtle differences in the workflows allowed for an appraisal of the processes within a fraction of radiotherapy and how this can be refined to improve efficiency.

Methods:

Retrospective fraction timings were collected using the Oncology Information System for 98 breast and prostate treatments at both sites. A literature review was also conducted to further explore factors that impact fraction timings in other departments internationally.

Results:

Breast and prostate treatments took 2·1 and 2·93 minutes, respectively, longer to deliver at the Main Site. Set-up to the isocentre and verification image assessment took significantly longer in all cases at the Main Site. Literature surrounding efficiency is scarce but suggests methods used for online management of verification imaging significantly impacts appointment times.

Conclusion:

Implementation of a paperless workflow and process improvements for image assessment such as introducing a traffic light protocol may reduce the time to deliver a fraction of radiotherapy and maximise service efficiency.

Keywords

radiotherapy workflowefficiencythroughputroom occupancy
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 22 , 2023 , e36
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Public Health England. Radiotherapy activity across England, 2017. http://www.ncin.org.uk/view?rid=3426. Accessed on 6th June 2020.Google Scholar
Cancer Research UK, NHS England. A vision for radiotherapy 2014–2024, 2014. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org. Accessed on 4th March 2020.Google Scholar
NHS England. 170091S Schedule 2 service specifications, 2019. https://www.rcr.ac.uk/publication/radiotherapy-dos. Accessed on 15th December 2019.Google Scholar
Public Health England. Learning from the past 10 years of the radiotherapy clinical site visit learning from the clinical site visit, 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/751214/Learning_from_the_past_10_years_of_the_Radiotherapy_Clinical_Site_Visit_FINAL_3.pdf. Accessed on 15th December 2019.Google Scholar
Prisma. PRISMA flow diagram. http://prisma-statement.org. Accessed on 12th December 2019.Google Scholar
Stewart, E, Sun, I, Kim, C et al. Examining radiation treatment appointment times at a Canadian cancer centre: a timing study. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2019; 50 (4): 536–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vorwerk, H, Zink, K, Schiller, R et al. Protection of quality and innovation in radiation oncology: the prospective multicenter trial the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO-QUIRO study): evaluation of time, attendance of medical staff, and resources during radiotherapy with IMRT. Strahlentherapie und Onkol 2015; 190 (5): 433–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beech, R, Burgess, K, Stratford, J. Process evaluation of treatment times in a large radiotherapy department. Radiography 2016; 22 (3): 206–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddings, A, Nica, L, French, J, Davis, C A, Smoke, M, Bolderston, A. Patterns of practice in Canadian radiation treatment centres: results of a national survey. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2018; 49 (1): 23–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miriyala, R, Thakur, P, Singh, A O et al. Workflow management in radiation oncology: the impact on a high volume department. Br J Heal Care Manag 2018; 24 (6): 302–307.Google Scholar
O’Shoffren, J, Tsang, Y, Kudhail, J. Implementation of a paperless workflow in radiotherapy; reducing transcription. Green J 2017; 36 (1): S563–S564.Google Scholar
McNair, H, Buijs, M. Image guided radiotherapy moving towards real time adaptive radiotherapy; global positioning system for radiotherapy? Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol 2019; 12 (1): 1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, W, Jaffray, D A, Wilson, G, Moseley, D. How long does it take? An analysis of volumetric image assessment time. Radiother Oncol 2016; 119 (1): 150–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwint, M, Conijn, S, Schaake, E et al. Intra thoracic anatomical changes in lung cancer patients during the course of radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2014; 113 (3): 392–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belderbos, J. Traffic light protocol. World Lung Conference. 17th International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Vienna, Austria, 2016.Google Scholar
Chun, S G, Hu, C, Choy, H et al. Impact of intensity-modulated radiation therapy technique for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a secondary analysis of the NRG oncology RTOG 0617 randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35 (1): 56–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed