Feasibility and benefits of a simplified physics direct patient care protocol.

IF 3.4 3区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Practical Radiation Oncology Pub Date : 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1016/j.prro.2025.02.010

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":"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.","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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

简化物理直接病人护理方案的可行性和益处。

目的：探讨在小型诊所实施医学物理咨询方案的好处和挑战。方法：简化物理直接病人护理（SPDPC）协议是基于先前描述的程序开发的。该计划被简化为在30分钟的时间段内与物理学家进行一次咨询。非紧急患者在外部光束模拟当天提供该计划，如果他们通过初步调查表示对三种咨询（虚拟，模拟日，治疗第一天）中的一种感兴趣，他们将采用斯皮尔伯格状态-特质焦虑量表（STAI-6）的简短形式。在咨询时，物理学家提供了治疗计划的简要概述，质量保证，回答问题，并提供了治疗室的参观（虚拟或亲自）。患者在会诊后重复进行问卷调查，回答2个情绪检查和3个技术满意度问题，在治疗结束时重复进行问卷调查，回答3个技术满意度问题和1个整体满意度问题。结果：SPDPC临床试验持续2年。200名患者参与，其中45% （n=90）入组。67%的人在治疗的第一天选择了当面咨询。78例患者完成会诊，65例患者完成治疗结束调查。焦虑评分（均数±标准差）基线时为32.1±12.8分，内科物理会诊后为27.5±12.0分，急诊时为26.7±9.0分。平均焦虑评分从入组到医学物理会诊后的变化有统计学意义（p=0.0004），从会诊到EOT的变化无统计学意义。平均技术满意度评分采用4分李克特量表进行评估。医学物理会诊后的平均技术满意度为3.82±0.51分，EOT时的平均技术满意度为3.92±0.19分。这两个时间点之间没有统计学上的显著差异。结论：由于人员资源和时间限制，在小型诊所为医学物理学家建立新的临床角色可能具有挑战性。SPDPC协议允许小型诊所提供医学物理咨询，尽管存在这些挑战，同时保持对患者及其护理体验的类似积极影响。

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

Practical Radiation Oncology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

6.10%

发文量

177

审稿时长

34 days

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.