Premium
Survey of Radiation Oncology Centres in Australia: Report of the Radiation Oncology Treatment Quality Program *
Author(s) -
Kolybaba M,
Kron T,
Harris J,
O'Brien P,
Kenny L
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.31
H-Index - 43
eISSN - 1754-9485
pISSN - 1754-9477
DOI - 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2009.02080.x
Subject(s) - medicine , radiation oncology , medical physics , oncology , quality (philosophy) , radiation therapy , clinical oncology , cancer , philosophy , epistemology
Summary One of the first steps towards the development of a comprehensive quality program for radiation oncology in Australia has been a survey of practice. This paper reports on the results of the survey that should inform the development of standards for radiation oncology in Australia. A questionnaire of 108 questions spanning aspects of treatment services, equipment, staff, infrastructure and available quality systems was mailed to all facilities providing radiation treatment services in Australia ( n = 45). Information of 42 sites was received by June 2006 providing data on 113 operational linear accelerators of which approximately 2/3 are equipped with multi‐leaf collimators. More than 75% of facilities were participating in a formal quality assurance (QA) system, with 63% following a nationally or internationally recognised system. However, there was considerable variation in the availability of policies and procedures specific to quality aspects, and the review of these. Policies for monitoring patient waiting times for treatment were documented at just 71% of all facilities. Although 85% of all centres do, in fact, monitor machine throughput, the number and types of efficiency measures varied markedly, thereby limiting the comparative use of these results. Centres identified workload as the single most common factor responsible for limiting staff involvement in both QA processes and clinical trial participation. The data collected in this ‘snapshot’ survey provide a unique and comprehensive baseline for future comparisons and evaluation of changes.