Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38882236›Full record

ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2024

Enhancing patient safety in radiotherapy: Implementation of a customized electronic checklist for radiation therapists.

Andrea Lastrucci, Marco Esposito, Eva Serventi, Livia Marrazzo, Giulio Francolini, Gabriele Simontacchi, Yannick Wandael, Angelo Barra, Stefania Pallotta, Renzo Ricci and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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.

Andrea LastrucciUniversity of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Marco EspositoMedical Physics, The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste 34151, Italy.
Eva ServentiRadiation Oncology Unit, Santo Stefano Hospital, Department of Allied Health Professions, Azienda USL Toscana Centro, Prato 59100, Italy.
Livia MarrazzoDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio" - University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Giulio FrancoliniRadiation Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Gabriele SimontacchiRadiation Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Yannick WandaelDepartment of Allied Health Professions, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Angelo BarraDepartment of Allied Health Professions, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Stefania PallottaDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio" - University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Renzo RicciDepartment of Allied Health Professions, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Lorenzo LiviDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio" - University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The radiotherapy workflow involves the collaboration of multiple professionals and the execution of several steps to results in an effective treatment. In this study, we described the clinical implementation of an electronic checklist, developed to standardize the process of the chart review prior to the first treatment fraction by the radiation therapists (RTTs). Materials and Methods: A customized electronic checklist was developed based on the recommendations of American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Groups 275 and 315 and integrated into the Record and Verify System (RVS). The checklist consisted of 16 items requiring binary (yes/no) responses, with mandatory completion and review by RTTs prior to treatment. The utility of the checklist and its impact on workflow were assessed by analysing checklist reports, and by soliciting feedback to RTTs through an anonymized survey. Results: During the first trial phase, from June to November 2023, 285 checklists were completed with a 98% compilation rate and 94.4% review rate. Forty errors were detected, mainly due to missing signed treatment plans and absence of Beam's Eye View documentation. Ninety percent of detected errors were fixed before the treatment start. In 4 cases, the problem could not be fixed before the first fraction, resulting in a suboptimal first treatment. The feedback survey showed that RTTs described the checklist as useful, with minimal impact on workload, and supported its implementation. Discussion: The introduction of a customized electronic checklist improved the detection and correction of errors, thereby enhancing patient safety. The positive response from RTTs and the minimal impact on workflow underscore the value of the checklist as standard practice in radiotherapy departments.

Indexed as

ChecklistRadiotherapyRisk managementRTTs

Identifiers

PMID38882236
PMCPMC11176772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.