Cassandra Kk Stambaugh, Kathryn E Huber, John Mignano, Elizabeth Meyer, Christopher S Melhus
{"title":"Feasibility and benefits of a simplified physics direct patient care protocol.","authors":"Cassandra Kk Stambaugh, Kathryn E Huber, John Mignano, Elizabeth Meyer, Christopher S Melhus","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.02.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the benefits and challenges of implementing a medical physics consult program in a small clinic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Simplified Physics Direct Patient Care (SPDPC) protocol was developed based on previously described programs. The program was streamlined to one consult with a physicist during a 30-minute time block. Non-emergent patients were offered the program on the day of external beam simulation and if they indicated interest in one of three consults (virtual, day of sim, first day of treatment) via an initial survey, they took the short form of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6). At consult, the physicist provided a brief overview of treatment planning, quality assurance, answered questions and provided a tour of the treatment room (virtual or in-person). Patients repeated the STAI-6, answered two emotional check-in and three technical satisfaction questions after the consult and then repeated the STAI-6, three technical satisfaction and one overall satisfaction question at the end of treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The SPDPC clinical trial ran for two years. 200 patients were offered participation and 45% (n=90) enrolled. 67% chose a consult in-person on their first day of treatment. 78 patients completed the consult and 65 completed the end of treatment (EOT) survey. The anxiety score was (mean ± standard deviation) 32.1 ± 12.8 at baseline, 27.5 ± 12.0 after medical physics consult, and 26.7 ± 9.0 at the EOT. The change in mean anxiety score from enrollment to after the medical physics consult was statistically significant (p=0.0004), and the change from consult to EOT was not significant. The mean technical satisfaction score was evaluated on a 4-point Likert scale. After the medical physics consult the mean technical satisfaction score was 3.82 ± 0.51 and at EOT 3.92 ± 0.19. There was no statistically significant difference between these two time-points.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Establishing a new clinical role for medical physicists in a small clinic can be challenging due to staffing resources and time restrictions. SPDPC protocol allows smaller clinics to provide medical physics consults, despite these challenges, while maintaining a similar positive impact to larger programs on the patient and their care experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2025.02.010","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the benefits and challenges of implementing a medical physics consult program in a small clinic.
Methods: A Simplified Physics Direct Patient Care (SPDPC) protocol was developed based on previously described programs. The program was streamlined to one consult with a physicist during a 30-minute time block. Non-emergent patients were offered the program on the day of external beam simulation and if they indicated interest in one of three consults (virtual, day of sim, first day of treatment) via an initial survey, they took the short form of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6). At consult, the physicist provided a brief overview of treatment planning, quality assurance, answered questions and provided a tour of the treatment room (virtual or in-person). Patients repeated the STAI-6, answered two emotional check-in and three technical satisfaction questions after the consult and then repeated the STAI-6, three technical satisfaction and one overall satisfaction question at the end of treatment.
Results: The SPDPC clinical trial ran for two years. 200 patients were offered participation and 45% (n=90) enrolled. 67% chose a consult in-person on their first day of treatment. 78 patients completed the consult and 65 completed the end of treatment (EOT) survey. The anxiety score was (mean ± standard deviation) 32.1 ± 12.8 at baseline, 27.5 ± 12.0 after medical physics consult, and 26.7 ± 9.0 at the EOT. The change in mean anxiety score from enrollment to after the medical physics consult was statistically significant (p=0.0004), and the change from consult to EOT was not significant. The mean technical satisfaction score was evaluated on a 4-point Likert scale. After the medical physics consult the mean technical satisfaction score was 3.82 ± 0.51 and at EOT 3.92 ± 0.19. There was no statistically significant difference between these two time-points.
Conclusion: Establishing a new clinical role for medical physicists in a small clinic can be challenging due to staffing resources and time restrictions. SPDPC protocol allows smaller clinics to provide medical physics consults, despite these challenges, while maintaining a similar positive impact to larger programs on the patient and their care experience.
期刊介绍：
The overarching mission of Practical Radiation Oncology is to improve the quality of radiation oncology practice. PRO''s purpose is to document the state of current practice, providing background for those in training and continuing education for practitioners, through discussion and illustration of new techniques, evaluation of current practices, and publication of case reports. PRO strives to provide its readers content that emphasizes knowledge "with a purpose." The content of PRO includes:
Original articles focusing on patient safety, quality measurement, or quality improvement initiatives
Original articles focusing on imaging, contouring, target delineation, simulation, treatment planning, immobilization, organ motion, and other practical issues
ASTRO guidelines, position papers, and consensus statements
Essays that highlight enriching personal experiences in caring for cancer patients and their families.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
