ESTRO 2022 - Abstract Book

S876

Abstract book

ESTRO 2022

Conclusion Robust optimization for scheduling indicates that large reductions in patients’ occupation time can be achieved in our one- stop-shop out-patient clinic. The tradeoff front allowed selection of the schedule that balanced best the average throughput time and the risk of overtime (Schedule 2). Schedule 2 is currently being implemented clinically. These results strongly support further exploration of scheduling optimization for RT preparation also outside a one-stop-shop setting.

PO-1041 Towards the definition of a minimum set of RT-specific Quality Indicators: an ESTRO NSC initiative

A. Vaandering 1 , N. Jornet 2 , P. Franco 3 , L.T. Tan 4 , L. Van Den Berghe 5 , S. Curcean 6 , E. Ghear ă 6 , M. Iljovska 7 , J. Jaal 8 , T. Kirsch 9 , F. Kraja 10 , M. Marius 9 , B.A. Jereczek 11 , C. Garibaldi 12 1 UCL Cliniques Universitaires St Luc, Department of Radiation Oncology, Brussels, Belgium; 2 Medical Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Department of Radiation Oncology, Barcelona, Spain; 3 University of Eastern Piedmont, Department of Translational Medicine (DIMET), Novara, Italy; 4 Cambridge University Hospitals, Department of Oncology, Cambridge, United Kingdom; 5 Ghent University Hospital, Department Radiation-Oncology, Ghent, Belgium; 6 Ion Chiricuta Institute of Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Cluj-Napoca, Romania; 7 University Clinic of Radiotherapy and Oncology (Skopje), Department for breast and thorax malignancies, Skopje, Macedonia Former Yugoslav Republic; 8 Tartu University Hospital, Clinic of Haematology and Oncology, Tartu, Estonia; 9 Ion Chiricuta Institute of Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Cluj-Napoca, Romania; 10 UHC “Mother Teresa”, Oncology Clinic, Tirana, Albania; 11 European Institute of Oncology - University of Milan, Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, Milan, Italy; 12 European Institute of Oncology IEO, IRCCS, Unit of Radiation Research, Milan, Italy Purpose or Objective In order to ensure equitable access to up-to-date radiotherapy, it is important to assess how RT standards are implemented at a local, national and international level. In this respect, assessment of Quality Indicators (QIs) not only contributes to both delivery of high-quality care and harmonisation of practice, but also helps in identifying target areas requiring improvement. We performed a systematic literature review to identify RT-specific QIs that are proposed and/or used in the RT community with the aim to generate consensus through a Delphi process on a minimum set of QIs that could be used at a European level. Materials and Methods A literature review was carried out in Embase database using the search terms ‘ radiotherapy, radiation oncology, quality indicators, quality improvement, quality assessment, quality measures and quality metrics ’, limited to English from 2010 to March 2021. Identified QIs were classified according to the Donabedian model of structure, process or outcome measures. The following attributes of the QI were also extracted: definition and specifications, rationale, inclusion/exclusion criteria and its goals. We differentiated those QIs that had been collected from those that were only defined and we looked at the scope of the QI (monocentric, multicentric, national or international). All QI were taxonomized to identify common themes in which they could be grouped.

Results