PubMed · 8642749
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R G Evens. 1996-06-19. Radiology.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8642749/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
PURPOSE: With the introduction of new treatment devices, such as a multileaf collimator (MLC) and dynamic wedge (DW), therapists have an increased responsibility to ensure correct treatment. Simultaneously, three-dimensional treatment planning (3DTP) has led to an increased number of portals and table movements. To counteract this challenge and maintain efficiency, a comprehensive record and verify (R&V) system is mandatory. We evaluated a commercial system (Varis) for reliability, ease of use, efficiency, and integration with our planning systems. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Some key elements of the Varis system are: integration of MLC and DW; auto setup for MLC, jaw, collimator, gantry, and limited table parameters; direct download of simulation beam data; and a regimented field scheduling system that prescribes all beam data for particular fractions. Evaluation of the system was driven by treatment time analysis, error rates, and an increased workload. These issues were governed by how we disseminated duties and how the system accommodated or changed our processes. RESULTS: Most data entry is performed by our dosimetry staff. Data can be downloaded from the simulator, but more patients now move from CT simulation and/or 3DTP to the treatment machine. Varis does not link to these systems. The physics staff confirms all entries to correct data entry errors. The workload for dosimetrists increased by an average of 8 minutes/patient entry; physics time increased by 7 minutes/patient entry; the weekly electronic chart check takes approximately 3 minutes/patient. Therapists who used Varis efficiently showed a slight decrease in treatment times, attributed to MLC integration and auto-setup. Some therapists experienced a decrease in efficiency, because of unfamiliarity and excess intervention. On a positive note, notable events have decreased by a factor of 10 since full initiation. Unfortunately, the remaining errors are often the result of a therapist relying on incorrect electronic information. CONCLUSION: The Varis R&V system has had an impact on our clinic's process and efficiency. Checking of all beam data and related field scheduling have helped reduce errors and misconceptions. We feel a dual-energy machine can be operated with two experienced therapists and an up-to-date R&V system more accurately and efficiently than with three therapists working without an integrated R&V. We anticipate future Varis releases will further promote efficiency and accuracy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
CONTEXT: The Internet is increasingly used by consumers to seek health and medical information, but online medical advice has not been explored systematically. OBJECTIVE: To explore the attitude of physicians and other providers of medical information on the Internet toward unsolicited e-mail from patients and their reaction to a fictitious acute medical problem described in such an e-mail. DESIGN: E-mail in December 1997 and January 1998 to Web sites from a fictitious patient describing an acute dermatological problem. Follow-up questionnaire survey to the same sites. SETTING: World Wide Web. SUBJECTS: Fifty-eight physicians and Web masters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Response rate and types of responses. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (50%) responded to the fictitious patient request; 9 respondents (31%) refused to give advice without having seen the lesion, 27 (93%) recommended that the patient see a physician, and 17 (59%) explicitly mentioned the correct "diagnosis" in their reply. In response to the questionnaire, 8 (28%) of the 29 respondents said that they tended not to answer any patient e-mail, 7 (24%) said they usually reply with a standard e-mail message, and 7 (24%) said they answer each request individually. CONCLUSIONS: Responses of physicians and Web masters to e-mail requests for medical advice vary as do approaches to handling unsolicited e-mail. Standards for physician response to unsolicited patient e-mail are needed.