Dataset Information

A multi-institutional assessment of COVID-19-related risk in radiation oncology.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented challenges to delivering safe and timely care for cancer patients. The oncology community has undertaken substantial workflow adaptations to reduce transmission risk for patients and providers. While various control measureshave been proposed and implemented, little is known about their impact on safety of the radiation oncology workflow and potential for transmission. The objective of this study was to assess potential safety impacts of control measures employed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A multi-institutional study was undertaken to assess the risks of pandemic-associated workflow adaptations using failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). Failure modes were identified and scored using FMEA formalism. FMEA scores were used to identify highest-risk aspects of the radiation therapy process. The impact of control measures on overall risk was quantified. Agreement among institutions was evaluated.

Results

Thirty three failure modes and 22 control measures were identified. Control measures resulted in risk score reductions for 22 of the failure modes, with the largest reductions from screening of patients and staff, requiring use of masks, and regular cleaning of patient areas. The median risk score for all failure modes was reduced from 280 to 168. There was high institutional agreement for 90.3% of failure modes but only 47% of control measures.

Conclusions

COVID-related risks are similar across oncology practices in this study. While control measures can reducerisk, their use varied. The effectiveness of control measures on risk may guide selection of the highest-impact workflow adaptions to ensure safe care in oncology.

SUBMITTER: Viscariello N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7574842 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A multi-institutional assessment of COVID-19-related risk in radiation oncology.

Viscariello Natalie N Evans Suzanne S Parker Stephanie S Schofield Deborah D Miller Brett B Gardner Stephen S Fong de Los Santos Luis L Hallemeier Christopher C Jordan Loucille L Kim Edward E Ford Eric E

Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology 20201020

<h4>Purpose</h4>The COVID-19 pandemic has presented challenges to delivering safe and timely care for cancer patients. The oncology community has undertaken substantial workflow adaptations to reduce transmission risk for patients and providers. While various control measureshave been proposed and implemented, little is known about their impact on safety of the radiation oncology workflow and potential for transmission. The objective of this study was to assess potential safety impacts of contro ...[more]

PMID: 33096163

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:To assess the optimal structure of an introductory curriculum (IC) for radiation oncology residents, including the perceived utility of a 2-day off-site "boot camp," and evaluate the success of a pilot introductory radiation oncology curriculum (IROC) based on these initial data. METHODS AND MATERIALS:In the first phase, anonymous, web-based surveys were sent to US radiation oncology program directors and residents. Likert-type scores (1, not at all; 5, extremely) are reported as the median and interquartile range. Using the phase 1 results, IROC was developed, piloted, and evaluated. RESULTS:Of the 89 program directors and 697 residents, 47 (53%) and 165 (24%) responded, respectively. Of the 89 program directors, 37 (79%) reported offering a formal IC. However, only 83 residents (50%) reported having a formal IC. Program directors reported resident preparation for clinical training as "moderate" (median 3, interquartile range 2-3) on entering residency and "moderate" (median 3, interquartile range 3-4) after IC completion (P = .03). However, residents only believed they were "slightly" prepared (median 2, interquartile range 1-2) on entering residency and "moderately" (median 3, interquartile range 2-3) prepared after IC completion (P < .01). Program directors believed an off-site boot camp would be of "moderate" utility (median 3, interquartile range 3-4) with participation limited by funding (57%). Residents without an IC reported that having an IC would be "quite" beneficial (median 4, interquartile range 3-5). Residents preferred instruction before the clinical training (49%) and over 1 week (40%). Both program directors and residents rated lectures on radiation emergencies and simulation highly. Using these data, IROC was developed and piloted with incoming residents at 4 institutions. After IROC, residents reported improvement in overall preparedness for clinical training (before: median 1, interquartile range 1-2; vs after: median 3, interquartile range 2-3; P < .01) and among specific practice domains. CONCLUSIONS:Beginning radiation oncology residents frequently lack structured introductory curricula but desire instruction before the clinical training with a focus on practical aspects (emergency management, contouring). Program directors recognize the value of both off-site and on-site boot camps. An on-site IC could mitigate funding barriers. A standardized IC, IROC, piloted at 4 programs, showed promising outcomes.

Project description:Introduction and backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has required rapid and repetitive adjustment of radiotherapy practice, hospital-level and department-level organization and hygiene measures. To prospectively monitor and manage stress levels and health concerns, employees of a radiation oncology department were invited to participate in weekly online surveys during the first year of the pandemic.Materials and methodsStarting March 31st, 2020, cross-sectional online surveys were distributed to all employees of the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich. The survey included questions about the profession, the work setting, the global stress level as well as the health concerns during the past work week. Stress levels and health concerns were assessed on a 10-point scale. SurveyMonkey® was used to conduct the survey. Distribution was performed via email. Participation was anonymous and voluntary.ResultsBetween March 2020 and February 2021, 50 weekly surveys were distributed to 127 employees on average and resulted in 1,877 individual responses. The average response rate was 30%. The mean global stress level varied significantly by profession, ranging from 2.7 (±2.5) points for administrative staff to 6.9 (±2.3) points for radiation therapy technicians (p < 0.001). The mean global stress level was highest with 4.8 (±2.9) points for in-hospital work with direct patient contact. Health concerns were highest regarding family and friends with 4.0 (±3.1) points on average. Changes of the stress level varied in correlation with infection waves.ConclusionWeekly online surveys for prospective assessment of stress levels and health concerns were successfully conducted during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating their feasibility and value to monitor profession and workplace specific stress patterns and to allowed for tailored interventions. The physical and mental health of frontline healthcare workers in radiation oncology should remain a top priority for departmental leadership beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:Abstract BACKGROUND The American Academy of Neurology Institute and Society for Neuro-Oncology recommend multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) meetings as a quality metric in neuro-oncology. With the COVID-19 pandemic resulting in travel restrictions, we expanded our existing MTB by transitioning to a virtual format that maintained our commitment to providing consultation for primary CNS tumor cases. This transition permitted participation by neuro-oncology teams from over 30 Brain Tumor Trials Collaborative (BTTC)/National Cancer Institute-Comprehensive Oncology Network Evaluating Rare CNS Tumors (NCI-CONNECT) centers across the United States. Here, we describe results from opening our MTB remotely to these teams. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed records from remote MTB meetings held between April 2020 and March 2021. To gauge the impact of our MTB on clinical management, we administered a brief survey querying BTTC members. RESULTS Twenty-eight providers presented 41 cases during 24 virtual MTB meetings (range: 1-4 cases per meeting). Two cases (5%) were presented only for educational value. Approximately half (54%) of the cases discussed dealt with diagnosis/management of an NCI-CONNECT rare CNS tumor. During MTB discussions of the 39 cases seeking diagnosis/management recommendations, 32% received clinical trial recommendations, 10% were suggested to enroll in the NCI Neuro-Oncology Branch (NOB) Natural History Study (NCT02851706), 17% received a recommendation to obtain central neuropathology review, and 100% received recommendations for further disease management. Most BTTC survey respondents (83%) found these recommendations impactful in the management/treatment of their presented case or generally useful/informative for their clinical practice. CONCLUSION We describe the feasibility and utility of an innovative virtual multi-institutional MTB. These novel remote meetings allowed for discussion of complex neuro-oncology cases and recommendations from experts, particularly important for those with rare CNS tumors. Our study’s findings during the COVID-19 pandemic of the value of providing remote access to MTBs should apply post-pandemic.

Project description:PurposeWe evaluated the impact of a virtual radiation oncology clerkship.Methods and materialsWe developed a 2-week virtual radiation oncology clerkship that launched on April 27, 2020. Clerkship components included a virtual clinic with radiation oncology faculty and residents, didactic lectures, student talks, and supplemental sessions such as tumor boards and chart rounds. Medical students completed pre- and post-clerkship self-assessments. Faculty and resident participants also completed surveys on their experience with virtual lectures and clinics. Pre- and post-clerkship results were compared using a 2-sided paired t test. An analysis of variance model was used to analyze the clerkship components.ResultsTwenty-six medical students, including 4 visiting students, enrolled over 2 clerkship periods (4 weeks). All students completed the pre- and post-clerkship self-assessments and agreed that the clerkship improved their understanding of radiation oncology. Compared with 3 (11.5%) students who agreed that they understood the daily responsibilities of a radiation oncologist before the clerkship, 22 (84.6%) students agreed and 3 (11.5%) strongly agreed that they understood the daily responsibilities of a radiation oncologist after the clerkship (P < .0001). Although 15 students (57.7%) reported an increased interest in radiation oncology because of the clerkship, the mean level of interest in radiation oncology as a career remained the same, with pre- and post-clerkship scores of 3.0 (±0.9) and 3.0 (±1.1) on a 5-point scale, respectively (P = .7). Students found virtual clinic and didactic lectures to be the most valuable components of the clerkship. Most respondents agreed (30.8%) or strongly agreed (65.4%) to recommend the clerkship to their classmates.ConclusionsOur virtual clerkship was effective in increasing medical student interest in and knowledge about radiation oncology. These data will help optimize a new paradigm of virtual radiation oncology education for medical students during COVID-19 and beyond.

Dataset Information

A multi-institutional assessment of COVID-19-related risk in radiation oncology.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A multi-institutional assessment of COVID-19-related risk in radiation oncology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets