ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Clinical physicists' perceptions of weekly chart checks and the potential role for automated image review assessed by structured interviews.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in radiation therapy: from imaging to delivery-a comprehensive review.BJR artificial intelligence · 2025Review
- Clinical physicists' perceptions of weekly chart checks and the potential role for automated image review assessed by structured interviews.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study utilizes interviews of clinical medical physicists to investigate self-reported shortcomings of the current weekly chart check workflow and opportunities for improvement.
methodsNineteen medical physicists were recruited for a 30-minute semi-structured interview, with a particular focus placed on image review and the use of automated tools for image review in weekly checks. Survey-type questions were used to gather quantitative information about chart check practices and importance placed on reducing chart check workloads versus increasing chart check effectiveness. Open-ended questions were used to probe respondents about their current weekly chart check workflow, opinions of the value of weekly chart checks and perceived shortcomings, and barriers and facilitators to the implementation of automated chart check tools. Thematic analysis was used to develop common themes across the interviews.
resultsPhysicists ranked highly the value of reducing the time spent on weekly chart checks (average 6.3 on a scale from 1 to 10), but placed more value on increasing the effectiveness of checks with an average of 9.2 on a 1-10 scale. Four major themes were identified: (1) weekly chart checks need to adapt to an electronic record-and-verify chart environment, (2) physicists could add value to patient care by analyzing images without duplicating the work done by physicians, (3) greater support for trending analysis is needed in weekly checks, and (4) automation has the potential to increase the value of physics checks.
conclusionThis study identified several key shortcomings of the current weekly chart check process from the perspective of the clinical medical physicist. Our results show strong support for automating components of the weekly check workflow in order to allow for more effective checks that emphasize follow-up, trending, failure modes and effects analysis, and allow time to be spent on other higher value tasks that improve patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.