ESTRO 38 Abstract book

S925 ESTRO 38

EP-1717 Challenges of Developing, Managing and Exploiting a National Radiotherapy Dataset – UK Experience C. Roe 1 , U. Findlay 1 1 Public Health England, National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, London, United Kingdom Purpose or Objective The Radiotherapy Dataset (RTDS) establishes a national standard for the collection of consistent and comparable data across radiotherapy (RT) providers in order to provide intelligence for service planning, commissioning, clinical practice and research and operational provision. Material and Methods RT providers are required to collect and submit the dataset and in turn, Public Health England (PHE) receive, validate, quality assure and integrate the data received to provide a timely and definitive analytical resource. This data is linked to data captured from other national cancer datasets (Cancer Outcomes and Services Dataset and Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy) to support key service metrics to track progress in the provision of radiotherapy and other cancer services. This enables cancer site- specific analyses of outcomes by patient and treatment variables, and provide better understanding and appreciation of the specific role of radiotherapy in improving outcomes compared with other treatment modalities. Results Public Health England (PHE) took over full responsibility for the RTDS with effect from 1 April 2016. Dataset inclusions: the mechanism for extracting and uploading data; data processing and registration procedural processes internal to PHE; dataset QA; monthly reports to RT providers and additional examples of how the data is used to inform clinical practice and influence outcomes will be presented. Conclusion RTDS data is been used to inform RT service provision. This can only be achieved through direct partnership with key stakeholders form the RT community. Radiotherapy continues to be a rapidly evolving field. Therefore, there is a real need for a continual cycle of development, ongoing management and exploitation of radiotherapy datasets to ensure benefit to all. EP-1718 Determination of ion recombination correction factor by empirical and numerical methods C. Anson Marcos 1 , P. Castro Tejero 1 , D. Hernández González 1 , M. Roch González 1 , P. García Castañón 1 , A. Viñals Muñoz 1 , R. Fayos-Sola Capilla 1 , S. Martín Juárez 2 , A. Valiente 2 , L. Pérez González 1 1 University Hospital La Princesa, Medical Physics, Madrid, Spain ; 2 University Hospital La Princesa, Radiation Therapist, Madrid, Spain Purpose or Objective Dose measurements using ionization chambers must take into account the effect of incomplete charge collection due to ion recombination as recommended by international protocols. The purpose of this work is to confirm the accuracy of ion recombination correction factor (ks) determined by empirical methods by evaluating its deviation to theoretical calculation. Material and Methods Equipment The cylindrical chambers were studied were PTW: Farmer 30013, Semiflex 31010 and PinPoint 3D 31016 . The collected charge was measured with a PTW MP3 TANDEM electrometer. Varian Clinac 2100CD linear accelerator delivering 6MV flattened photon beam was used. Measurement setup

EP-1716 The Value of Independent Review in the Implementation of New Techniques at a New Radiotherapy Centre R. Lally 1 , E. Reilly 1 , D. Stewart 1 , A. Reilly 1 1 Western Health and Social Care Trust, Radiotherapy Physics, Derry, United Kingdom Purpose or Objective Radiotherapy incidents have an adverse effect on treatment outcomes and consequently public perception of the safety of radiotherapy.Factors which contribute to incidents, as set-out in Towards Safer Radiotherapy, include: lack of training, competence or experience, fatigue and stress, poor design and documentation of procedures, over-reliance on automated procedures, poor communication and lack of team working, hierarchical departmental structure, staffing and skill levels, working environment and changes in processes.However, many of these factors are inherent to a new radiotherapy service established in a new centre, staffed by teams where individuals are often in a more senior position than they previously held.To mitigate risk, our centre added an additional safety layer to the commissioning process by requiring all new techniques, and significant changes to an existing technique, to be independently reviewed by a senior MDT.This work shares the benefits to this approach. Material and Methods Review teams consisted of senior representation from each professional group (i.e.Physics,Radiographers and Oncologists), ensuring no member had been directly involved in the implementation process.Reviews were primarily undertaken as tabletop exercises intended to address the salient points of Towards Safer Radiotherapy. Evidence reviewed included documentation (Process Documents, Records, End to End Test Reports etc.) embedded in the Quality Management System (QMS). To ensure staff were adequately trained, and service provisions adequate, competence matrices were reviewed to ensure sufficient numbers were trained to deliver the service.The teams also focused on legislative requirements.Findings were communicated verbally and tracked via email, alongside clear measurable objectives and milestones.The process was repeated until all outstanding actions had been addressed.A final implementation review report was published and made available in the QMS. Reviews have so far been undertaken for lung and head and neck radiotherapy. Results Lung radiotherapy was the first site implemented using independent review. The MDT identified n=12 findings, ranging from; the issue of entitlement records; update of competence matrices; documentation of end-to-end testing; through to work instruction changes. Findings were addressed within 13 days. Fewer findings were identified during the Head and Neck review. Conclusion Considering the many steps associated with radiotherapy, our centre found the implementation review process a valuable tool to identify any errors before they could propagate to an incident. The overall consensus was that the independent reviews provided valuable learning opportunities and reassurance to staff, thus reducing stress and consequently fatigue.Furthermore, through an increased overall awareness of how processes evolve, staff are less fearful of change and are more willing to constructively engage when changes are proposed.