Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42088929›Full record

ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2026

Increased frequency of remote and off-site work impacts incident learning workflows in radiation oncology.

Ethan Steele, Matthew Whitmill, Ross McGurk, Xianming Tan, Alison Amos, Zachary Oaks, Michael Dance, Ashley Weiner, Lukasz Mazur, Lawrence B Marks and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Ethan SteeleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Matthew WhitmillDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Ross McGurkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Xianming TanDepartment of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Alison AmosDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Zachary OaksDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Michael DanceDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Ashley WeinerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Lukasz MazurDivision of Healthcare Engineering, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Lawrence B MarksDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Bhishamjit CheraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.
Shivani SudDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Incident learning is key to improving clinical quality and safety. This study evaluates the impact of workflow changes related to increasing remote work on incident learning in a radiation oncology clinic. Methods and materials: We analyzed reported event data for three 12-month intervals: Results: Over the three years considered, 798 event reports were submitted and reviewed. The reporting rate (number of reported events per patient simulated) decreased over time: pre-COVID 0.18 [335/1834]; during-COVID 0.15 [245/1609]; and COVID-adapted 0.13 [218/1695]. The severity of events declined over time (p=<0.001). As time progressed, the location of event origin shifted towards earlier steps in our workflows (i.e. towards simulation-related imaging and treatment planning). Similarly, the point of event discovery shifted to earlier steps as well (ie. towards during pretreatment review and verification, and away from treatment delivery and management). Communication was frequently identified as a contributor during the latter two time periods while workload was less frequently cited compared to pre-COVID. Conclusion: The severity, site of origin/discovery of events and associated/contributing factors varied over time demonstrating shifts in the nature of events associated with changes in pandemic-induced workflows. Additional efforts to promote event reporting are needed to maintain the benefits of incident learning.

Indexed as

Incident learningQualityRadiation oncologyRemote workSafety

Identifiers

PMID42088929
PMCPMC13137206

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.