From novice to Expert: Reducing Breast Imaging rejection rates through physician mentorship in Advanced Practice Radiation therapy

Q1 Nursing
Clodagh Starrs , Sima Rabinowitz , Erin Moshier , Sheryl Green
{"title":"From novice to Expert: Reducing Breast Imaging rejection rates through physician mentorship in Advanced Practice Radiation therapy","authors":"Clodagh Starrs ,&nbsp;Sima Rabinowitz ,&nbsp;Erin Moshier ,&nbsp;Sheryl Green","doi":"10.1016/j.tipsro.2024.100279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The study’s goal was to evaluate the impact of a Radiation Oncologist (RO)—Radiation Therapist (RTT) mentorship on image approval rates for a breast population undergoing radiation therapy in a high-volume practice. The mentorship was undertaken within a large health system in partial fulfillment of the Expert Practice Module for a Masters (MSc) in Advanced Practice Radiotherapy and Oncology.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Images were retrieved from the MOSAIQ EMR on breast diagnostic code. 1,295 images/115 patients were reviewed pre-mentorship (October 2019-March 2020) and compared with 1,047 images/91patients during/post-mentorship (April 2020-September 2020). The Anderson-Gill (AG) model was used to estimate the hazard ratio for image rejection. Rejected images were classified by reason and compared using Fisher’s exact test. Concordance data (RO/RTT image rejection) were collected during Phase Three of the mentorship.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 115 patients assessed pre-mentorship, 16 (14 %) had at least 1 image rejected at any session. Of 91 patients assessed post-mentorship, 8 (9 %) had at least 1 image rejected. Likelihood of image rejection decreased by 54 %, with a hazard ratio of 0.46 [95 % CI: 0.24, 0.88]; p = 0.0195. Reasons for image rejection differed pre- and post-mentorship. Poor imaging technique accounted for rejection of 9 of 24 images (37.5 %) before compared to 0 of 11 images (0 %) post-mentorship. Other reasons for image rejection: depth at isocenter (25 % pre-mentorship; 18 % post-mentorship), supraclavicular medial border position (12.5 % vs. 9.09 %), isocenter location (12.5 % vs. 0 %), arm position (4.17 % vs. 54.55 %); hip alignment (8.33 % vs. 18.18 %). Concordance rate was 100 %.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The mentorship proved successful in elevating the RTT’s skills and image approval rates, while contributing to improvements in departmental imaging best practices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36328,"journal":{"name":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","volume":"32 ","pages":"Article 100279"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405632424000465","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

The study’s goal was to evaluate the impact of a Radiation Oncologist (RO)—Radiation Therapist (RTT) mentorship on image approval rates for a breast population undergoing radiation therapy in a high-volume practice. The mentorship was undertaken within a large health system in partial fulfillment of the Expert Practice Module for a Masters (MSc) in Advanced Practice Radiotherapy and Oncology.

Methods

Images were retrieved from the MOSAIQ EMR on breast diagnostic code. 1,295 images/115 patients were reviewed pre-mentorship (October 2019-March 2020) and compared with 1,047 images/91patients during/post-mentorship (April 2020-September 2020). The Anderson-Gill (AG) model was used to estimate the hazard ratio for image rejection. Rejected images were classified by reason and compared using Fisher’s exact test. Concordance data (RO/RTT image rejection) were collected during Phase Three of the mentorship.

Results

Of 115 patients assessed pre-mentorship, 16 (14 %) had at least 1 image rejected at any session. Of 91 patients assessed post-mentorship, 8 (9 %) had at least 1 image rejected. Likelihood of image rejection decreased by 54 %, with a hazard ratio of 0.46 [95 % CI: 0.24, 0.88]; p = 0.0195. Reasons for image rejection differed pre- and post-mentorship. Poor imaging technique accounted for rejection of 9 of 24 images (37.5 %) before compared to 0 of 11 images (0 %) post-mentorship. Other reasons for image rejection: depth at isocenter (25 % pre-mentorship; 18 % post-mentorship), supraclavicular medial border position (12.5 % vs. 9.09 %), isocenter location (12.5 % vs. 0 %), arm position (4.17 % vs. 54.55 %); hip alignment (8.33 % vs. 18.18 %). Concordance rate was 100 %.

Conclusions

The mentorship proved successful in elevating the RTT’s skills and image approval rates, while contributing to improvements in departmental imaging best practices.
从新手到专家:通过高级放射治疗实践中的医生指导降低乳腺成像拒绝率
目的 该研究旨在评估放射肿瘤学家(RO)-放射治疗师(RTT)导师制对接受放射治疗的大量乳腺患者的图像批准率的影响。这项指导工作是在一个大型医疗系统内进行的,部分完成了放射治疗和肿瘤学高级实践硕士(MSc)的专家实践模块。对导师指导前(2019 年 10 月至 2020 年 3 月)的 1,295 张图像/115 名患者进行了审查,并与导师指导期间/后(2020 年 4 月至 2020 年 9 月)的 1,047 张图像/91 名患者进行了比较。安德森-吉尔(Anderson-Gill,AG)模型用于估算图像拒绝的危险比。根据拒收原因对拒收图像进行分类,并使用费雪精确检验进行比较。结果 在接受指导前评估的 115 名患者中,有 16 人(14%)在任何一次治疗中至少有一幅图像被拒绝。在导师指导后进行评估的 91 名患者中,有 8 人(9%)至少有一张图像被拒绝。图像被拒的可能性降低了 54%,危险比为 0.46 [95 % CI: 0.24, 0.88];P = 0.0195。图像被拒的原因在指导前和指导后有所不同。在接受指导前,24 张图像中有 9 张(37.5%)因成像技术不佳而被拒绝,而在接受指导后,11 张图像中有 0 张(0%)因成像技术不佳而被拒绝。其他拒绝成像的原因包括:等中心深度(指导前 25%;指导后 18%)、锁骨上内侧边界位置(12.5% 对 9.09%)、等中心位置(12.5% 对 0%)、手臂位置(4.17% 对 54.55%);髋关节对齐(8.33% 对 18.18%)。结论事实证明,导师制成功地提高了 RTT 的技能和图像批准率,同时有助于改善科室的成像最佳实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
67 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信