Quality assurance of a record-and-verify system

Barbara Baiotto, Christian Bracco, Sara Bresciani, Antonella Mastantuoni, Pietro Gabriele, Michele Stasi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims and background. With the introduction of more complex three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques in clinical practice, the use of record-and-verify systems is recommended to improve the accuracy of radiotherapy treatments. The aim of the present study was to evaluate, for a commercial record-and-verify system, the efficiency, integration with the treatment planning system, and impact of manual checking of data. The most frequent errors or misses were also evaluated. Materials and methods. The development of internal protocols to systematically implement new technologies has been identified as a priority in the departmental quality assurance process. Data electronically fed into the record-and-verify system were compared with those manually recorded in the clinical paper chart over a period of almost 6 years (October 2000 to December 2006). A total of 7768 treated patients was reviewed. The check was performed by using a homemade data base in which the errors are stratified as follows: 1) general section, 2) geometric and dosimetric section, and 3) delivered dose section. Results. On a total of 7768 checked patients, one or more mismatches between treatment planning system data and record-and-verify system data or paper chart data were observed for 452 patients (5.8% of total number of inspected patients). The percentage of discrepancies out of the total was: 2.2% in the general section, 3.3% in the dosimetric and geometric section, and 4.2% in the delivered-dose section. Conclusions. Although record-and-verify systems assume a crucial role in the accuracy and reproducibility of radiation treatment, their inability to eradicate all the errors requires vigilance on the part of the radiation therapy and physics team.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)467-472
Number of pages6
JournalTumori
Volume95
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Information Systems
Radiotherapy
Systems Integration
Conformal Radiotherapy
Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Physics
Therapeutics
Databases
Radiation
Technology

Keywords

  • Electronic chart
  • Errors in radiation delivery
  • Quality assurance
  • Record-and-verify systems

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Baiotto, B., Bracco, C., Bresciani, S., Mastantuoni, A., Gabriele, P., & Stasi, M. (2009). Quality assurance of a record-and-verify system. Tumori, 95(4), 467-472.

Quality assurance of a record-and-verify system. / Baiotto, Barbara; Bracco, Christian; Bresciani, Sara; Mastantuoni, Antonella; Gabriele, Pietro; Stasi, Michele.

In: Tumori, Vol. 95, No. 4, 2009, p. 467-472.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Baiotto, B, Bracco, C, Bresciani, S, Mastantuoni, A, Gabriele, P & Stasi, M 2009, 'Quality assurance of a record-and-verify system', Tumori, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 467-472.
Baiotto, Barbara ; Bracco, Christian ; Bresciani, Sara ; Mastantuoni, Antonella ; Gabriele, Pietro ; Stasi, Michele. / Quality assurance of a record-and-verify system. In: Tumori. 2009 ; Vol. 95, No. 4. pp. 467-472.
@article{3b7704eee6124791a874744fdd5e8691,
title = "Quality assurance of a record-and-verify system",
abstract = "Aims and background. With the introduction of more complex three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques in clinical practice, the use of record-and-verify systems is recommended to improve the accuracy of radiotherapy treatments. The aim of the present study was to evaluate, for a commercial record-and-verify system, the efficiency, integration with the treatment planning system, and impact of manual checking of data. The most frequent errors or misses were also evaluated. Materials and methods. The development of internal protocols to systematically implement new technologies has been identified as a priority in the departmental quality assurance process. Data electronically fed into the record-and-verify system were compared with those manually recorded in the clinical paper chart over a period of almost 6 years (October 2000 to December 2006). A total of 7768 treated patients was reviewed. The check was performed by using a homemade data base in which the errors are stratified as follows: 1) general section, 2) geometric and dosimetric section, and 3) delivered dose section. Results. On a total of 7768 checked patients, one or more mismatches between treatment planning system data and record-and-verify system data or paper chart data were observed for 452 patients (5.8{\%} of total number of inspected patients). The percentage of discrepancies out of the total was: 2.2{\%} in the general section, 3.3{\%} in the dosimetric and geometric section, and 4.2{\%} in the delivered-dose section. Conclusions. Although record-and-verify systems assume a crucial role in the accuracy and reproducibility of radiation treatment, their inability to eradicate all the errors requires vigilance on the part of the radiation therapy and physics team.",
keywords = "Electronic chart, Errors in radiation delivery, Quality assurance, Record-and-verify systems",
author = "Barbara Baiotto and Christian Bracco and Sara Bresciani and Antonella Mastantuoni and Pietro Gabriele and Michele Stasi",
year = "2009",
language = "English",
volume = "95",
pages = "467--472",
journal = "Tumori",
issn = "0300-8916",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality assurance of a record-and-verify system

AU - Baiotto, Barbara

AU - Bracco, Christian

AU - Bresciani, Sara

AU - Mastantuoni, Antonella

AU - Gabriele, Pietro

AU - Stasi, Michele

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Aims and background. With the introduction of more complex three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques in clinical practice, the use of record-and-verify systems is recommended to improve the accuracy of radiotherapy treatments. The aim of the present study was to evaluate, for a commercial record-and-verify system, the efficiency, integration with the treatment planning system, and impact of manual checking of data. The most frequent errors or misses were also evaluated. Materials and methods. The development of internal protocols to systematically implement new technologies has been identified as a priority in the departmental quality assurance process. Data electronically fed into the record-and-verify system were compared with those manually recorded in the clinical paper chart over a period of almost 6 years (October 2000 to December 2006). A total of 7768 treated patients was reviewed. The check was performed by using a homemade data base in which the errors are stratified as follows: 1) general section, 2) geometric and dosimetric section, and 3) delivered dose section. Results. On a total of 7768 checked patients, one or more mismatches between treatment planning system data and record-and-verify system data or paper chart data were observed for 452 patients (5.8% of total number of inspected patients). The percentage of discrepancies out of the total was: 2.2% in the general section, 3.3% in the dosimetric and geometric section, and 4.2% in the delivered-dose section. Conclusions. Although record-and-verify systems assume a crucial role in the accuracy and reproducibility of radiation treatment, their inability to eradicate all the errors requires vigilance on the part of the radiation therapy and physics team.

AB - Aims and background. With the introduction of more complex three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques in clinical practice, the use of record-and-verify systems is recommended to improve the accuracy of radiotherapy treatments. The aim of the present study was to evaluate, for a commercial record-and-verify system, the efficiency, integration with the treatment planning system, and impact of manual checking of data. The most frequent errors or misses were also evaluated. Materials and methods. The development of internal protocols to systematically implement new technologies has been identified as a priority in the departmental quality assurance process. Data electronically fed into the record-and-verify system were compared with those manually recorded in the clinical paper chart over a period of almost 6 years (October 2000 to December 2006). A total of 7768 treated patients was reviewed. The check was performed by using a homemade data base in which the errors are stratified as follows: 1) general section, 2) geometric and dosimetric section, and 3) delivered dose section. Results. On a total of 7768 checked patients, one or more mismatches between treatment planning system data and record-and-verify system data or paper chart data were observed for 452 patients (5.8% of total number of inspected patients). The percentage of discrepancies out of the total was: 2.2% in the general section, 3.3% in the dosimetric and geometric section, and 4.2% in the delivered-dose section. Conclusions. Although record-and-verify systems assume a crucial role in the accuracy and reproducibility of radiation treatment, their inability to eradicate all the errors requires vigilance on the part of the radiation therapy and physics team.

KW - Electronic chart

KW - Errors in radiation delivery

KW - Quality assurance

KW - Record-and-verify systems

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350065504&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350065504&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 95

SP - 467

EP - 472

JO - Tumori

JF - Tumori

SN - 0300-8916

IS - 4

ER -