Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42717726›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026

A centralized hybrid model for regulatory inspection readiness in a multi-site radiation oncology system.

Chaitanya Kalavagunta, Dustin Simonson, Mariana Guerrero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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

3 authors.

Chaitanya KalavaguntaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Dustin SimonsonFrederick Health Radiation Medicine, Frederick, Maryland, USA.
Mariana GuerreroDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundState regulatory inspections of radiation-producing treatment equipment combine a review of quality assurance and regulatory records with direct verification of facility and safety systems. When these activities are performed entirely on-site across multiple facilities, real-time document retrieval can prolong visits and divert clinical staff. PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a centralized hybrid framework that separates advance document review from focused on-site verification during state-mandated annual inspections of photon linear accelerators.

methodsThe framework was implemented across five photon treatment sites comprising 10 linear accelerators using an institutionally deployed cloud-based quality assurance platform (TotalQA, Image Owl Inc., Greenwich, NY). Site physicists uploaded machine- and site-specific records directly. A dedicated guest account allowed the inspector to review documents approximately 14 days before each visit. Document-verifiable items and photographs of required postings were reviewed remotely; audio/video monitoring systems, linac-on warning lights, staff access to applicable state regulatory requirements and personnel dosimetry records, written operating and emergency procedures, direct questions, and unresolved items remained on-site. A system-wide clinical deviation logbook containing protected health information was reviewed once in person at a central location. Operational outcomes included on-site duration, daily throughput, physicist support, schedule adherence, treatment impact, and inspection findings.

resultsHistorical inspections required approximately 120 min of on-site time per facility, based on calendar records, prior schedules, and staff recollection. During the hybrid implementation, on-site inspection time was approximately 30 minutes per facility based on records documented at the time of each inspection, representing an estimated 75% reduction. Daily throughput increased from approximately three sites per day to four sites per day. The inspector estimated that advance review required 1 to 2 h per site, generally closer to 2 h during the first cycle. All visits remained within scheduled blocks, no inspection-related treatment delays or interruptions occurred, and no documentation-related citations were identified.

conclusionsA centralized hybrid model was feasible for state-mandated annual inspections of linear accelerators in a multi-site radiation oncology system. Advance review reduced on-site document-navigation demands while preserving direct verification of physical and safety-related elements. Because remote-review time was estimated retrospectively, the findings support reduced on-site duration rather than reduced total inspector effort.

Indexed as

Particle AcceleratorsQuality Assurance, Health CareRadiation OncologyHumansQuality ControlRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedLinac quality assuranceMulti‐siteRadiation oncology workflowRegulatory inspection

Identifiers

PMID42717726
PMCPMC13559466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.