{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Medical physics external beam plan review: What contributes to the variability?
{Author}: Salomons G;Nakonechny K;Neath C;Chin L;Keller H;Chan GH;
{Journal}: Phys Med
{Volume}: 89
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: Sep 2021
{Factor}: 3.119
{DOI}: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.08.004
{Abstract}: OBJECTIVE: In this article we report on the results of a survey of physics plan review practices conducted by the Cancer Care Ontario Communities of Practice and the variations in practice between and within centers.
METHODS: The medical physicists at each center worked together to complete the survey and submit a single response for that center. A 4-point Likert scale, used to report the variation in practice at each center, was quantified into two parameters: "Intra-center variation", the distribution of responses within the center, and "Variation between centers", the difference between the center's response and the provincial mean. These metrics were correlated with center characteristics to identify factors that impacted on variations in practice.
RESULTS: Bolus and heterogeneity correction were the only two items checked by all physicists in all centers. In more than half of the centers, image registration and DVH binning are not likely checked by physics. A significant difference in the variation between centers is observed for centers that used a single vendor's products. Centers that used an official checklist indicated higher levels and a wider range of Intra-center variation. Higher workload did not affect the variation in checking patterns between physicists in the same center.
CONCLUSIONS: The effect of a center's resources on their checking practice suggest that local environment and workflow be accounted for when implementing TG275 guidelines. The observation that standardized checklists did not reduce checking variability point to the importance of following the checklist development guidelines in MPPG4 to avoid ineffective checklists.