Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27910290›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2016

Radiation therapy staffing model 2014.

Leigh J Smith, Rachel Kearvell, Anthony J Arnold, Kevina Choma, Aniko Cooper, Michael R Young, Donna L Matthews, Bronwyn Hilder, Debbie Howson, Katherine Fox and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Navigating uncertainty: The implementation of Australian radiation therapy advanced practitioners.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2021
    Article
  5. Radiation therapy staffing model 2014.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Leigh J SmithDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Alfred, Prahran, Victoria, Australia.
Rachel KearvellRadiation Therapy Advisory Panel, Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (formerly Australian Institute of Radiography), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Anthony J ArnoldRadiation Therapy Advisory Panel, Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (formerly Australian Institute of Radiography), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Kevina ChomaRadiation Therapy Advisory Panel, Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (formerly Australian Institute of Radiography), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Aniko CooperRadiation Therapy Advisory Panel, Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (formerly Australian Institute of Radiography), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Michael R YoungRadiation Therapy Advisory Panel, Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (formerly Australian Institute of Radiography), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Donna L MatthewsRadiation Therapy Advisory Panel, Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (formerly Australian Institute of Radiography), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Bronwyn HilderWP Holman Clinic, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Debbie HowsonSchool of Health Sciences, International Centre for Allied Health Evidence (iCAHE), University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Katherine FoxDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Alfred, Prahran, Victoria, Australia.
Katheryn ChurcherOlivia Newton-John Cancer Research and Wellness Centre, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn 2001, the Radiation Therapy Advisory Panel (RTAP) of the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (ASMIRT) (formerly known as Australian Institute of Radiography) published a model for radiation therapist staffing in Australian radiation oncology departments. Between 2012-2013, the model was reviewed to ensure it reflected current radiation therapy practice, technology, and to facilitate forward planning of the radiation therapy workforce.

methodTwenty-four sites from all states participated and provided data on megavoltage simulation, planning and treatment delivery. For simulation and planning activity, the length of time to complete was collected against relevant Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items. For treatment delivery, time to complete activities was collected against a common set of activities. Modelling assumptions are clearly identified in the methodology.

resultsA new model was developed retaining the essential model parameter of full-time equivalent (FTE) radiation therapists (RTs) per linear accelerator operating hour as in the 2001 model but based on contemporary practice and data. The model also includes significant refinements that improve the model's overall utility and flexibility for both workforce planning purposes and for individual services to use the model according to their own organisational needs and service delivery profiles.

conclusionThe ASMIRT believes that the 2014 RT staffing model provides the utility and flexibility for radiation oncology services to best plan RT staffing establishments according to their needs and reflecting the diversity between services and within the sector. It should also provide a robust and valid basis for governments and service planners to use as a guide in workforce planning into the future.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicRadiologyRadiotherapyAustraliaPersonnel ManagementRadiologistsSocieties, MedicalWorkforcePlanningradiation therapystaffing modelworkforce

Identifiers

PMID27910290
PMCPMC5167329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.