ESTRO 36 Abstract Book

S1017 ESTRO 36 _______________________________________________________________________________________________

EP-1862 Alert issues in the radiotherapy D. Eyssen 1 1 MAASTRO Clinic, Radiation Oncology, Maastricht, The Netherlands Purpose or Objective There are several report available with information about risky circumstances in healthcare. The ECRI publish a top 10 list from risk in healthcare. The ECRI is an independent, non- profit organization who investigates the best approach for improvement of risk, quality and cost effectivity in patientcare. On their website the top 10 hazard list is presented.According to these lists, alarm management is a top 10 risk. Due to the dominant human- technic relation within the radiotherapy this risk is also an issue in the radiotherapy. Material and Methods The main focus for this research is advisory towards reliable alerts at the right, risky moment whereby the user will receive an adequate alert and knows how to handle. There will be an comparison of the incident database between the radiotherapy institutes. The cadre for this comparison is: The overkill off reminders / pop-ups / warnings. The lack of reminders / pop-ups / warnings.The process on the linear accelerator. There will also be a tally between radiotherapy institutes. The main focus is to investigate if there are different alerts between the institutes and the way institutes deal with these alerts. For this tally the cadre is the linear accelerator Results Comparison of the database 3 institutes checked their database of incidents. Are there any incident related to Alert management? What seems is that there are not that many incident report related to this topic. Although the less reports about alerts management, it was still possible to classify the reports in four groups: Alerts that have less organizational embedding. This can lead to alerts tiredness. No alert present but desirable. Unclear alerts for the user. Alerts 9 institutes have shared their data and tally their alerts on the linear accelerator. The project group collect all the data and processed it into a document. Although there is variation between the number of alerts popups between the different vendors, all the institutes received 1 to 5 alerts pop ups during one single patient treatment. whereof not sure what the consequences are Tally between the radiotherapy institutes

centralized patient data into a single user interface accessible across multiple locations. Patient record integrity could be further improved. EP-1861 Patient Satisfaction with Radiotherapy Services at Institute of Oncology in Ljubljana (Slovenia) V. Zager Marciuš 1 , M. Križan 1 , A. Oklješa Lukič 1 , I. Oblak 1 1 Institute of Oncology- Ljubljana, Radiotherapy Department, Ljubljana, Slovenia Purpose or Objective Purpose/Objective: The objective of the research was to determine the degree of patients' satisfaction with radiotherapy services at the Institute of Oncology in Ljubljana and to obtain feedback on the quality of performance of various professional profiles and healthcare. Material and Methods Material/methods: The research makes use of the descriptive method, reviewing and analyzing scientific literature. Using a cross-section one-day study, we assessed the satisfaction of patients with various professional profiles (receptionists, nurses, radiology engineers, doctors, radiotherapy oncologists) and with healthcare in general. The instrument used to obtain the study data was a questionnaire utilizing Likert’s five-point scale of satisfaction. The questionnaire was first tested on a small group of patients. The surveying, which was implemented over the course of one day, was conducted in November 2015. The study a total of 282 involved patients out of the 359 planned, which adds up to a 78.6 % overall response rate. For the analysis and evaluation of the data obtained, two computer programs were used, namely Microsoft Excel 2010 and IBM SPSS Statistics 22. The study was approved by the Commission for Ethics and Professional Assessment of Clinical Study Protocols at the Institute of Oncology in Ljubljana. Results Results: Out of the 282 participants in the study, 51.4 % were male and 48.6 % female. 80.9 % of the patients participating in the survey were over 50 years old. The older and less educated patients were generally more satisfied with both the medical staff and the services provided. The questions in the questionnaire were divided into three segments: work, provision of information, and kindness. The patients were most satisfied with the work of radiology engineers and the kindness of doctors, radiotherapy oncologists, and nurses. The patients who knew their doctor by name gave higher ratings for their satisfaction with the operation of the radiotherapy department with a statistically significant difference ( p=0.030 ). A very strong correlation coefficient (i.e. a correlation coefficient whose value exceeds 0.600) was found in relation to the satisfaction with the operation of the radiotherapy department, namely in terms of work and the provision of information by radiology engineers and doctors’ work and kindness. All the correlations obtained were statistically significant in terms of risk (1 %). Conclusion Conclusion: The assessment of a patient’s satisfaction level is a generally recognized method of determining the quality of healthcare services. The efficiency of a patient’s medical treatment is determined by multiple factors, among them being the working environment, relationships among the medical staff, the methods of leadership and organization, motivation and training of the medical staff. Hence, the opinions of patients represent a vital basis for the planning of changes and improvements that would lead to a quality implementation of work and medical care.

There also seems a difference between the vendors. In the comparison there is clearly visible that one suppliers presenting less alert pop up than the other. There is no value judgment between the vendors about the alerts and related incidents. Also the action that should be taken by the alerts is different between the two vendors. One vendor is using an override while the other is using the OK button