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

Clodagh Starrs , Sima Rabinowitz , Erin Moshier , Sheryl Green
{"title":"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","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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

摘要

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。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
From novice to Expert: Reducing Breast Imaging rejection rates through physician mentorship in Advanced Practice Radiation therapy

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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
67 days
期刊最新文献
The status quo of global geriatric radiation oncology education: A scoping review A systematic review of prostate bed motion and anisotropic margins in post-prostatectomy external beam radiotherapy International virtual radiation therapy professional development: Reflections on a twinning collaboration between a low/middle and high income country A code orange for traffic-light-protocols as a communication mechanism in IGRT On the trail of CBCT-guided adaptive rectal boost radiotherapy, does daily delineation require a radiation oncologist?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1