BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
First published online January 31, 2007
British Journal of Radiology (2007) 80, 367-370
© 2007 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/53036313
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dale, R G
Right arrow Articles by Antoniou, E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dale, R G
Right arrow Articles by Antoniou, E

Full paper

Results of a UK survey on methods for compensating for unscheduled treatment interruptions and errors in treatment delivery

R G Dale, PhD, FinstP, FIPEM 1,2 B Jones, MD, FRCR, FRCP 3 J A Sinclair, MSc, MIPEM 1 C Comins, MB, BS, MRCP 1 and E Antoniou, Dip. PCM 1

1 Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust, London W6 8RF, 2 Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ, 3 Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Birmingham B15 2TH, UK

Correspondence: Professor R G Dale, Radiation Physics & Radiobiology, Charing Cross Hospital, London W6 8RF, UK. E-mail: r.dale{at}imperial.ac.uk

In order to obtain a preliminary overview of the current national status regarding the management of both unintentional interruptions to radiotherapy treatments and inadvertent errors in treatment delivery, a short questionnaire was sent to 60 UK radiotherapy departments, of which 35 (58%) responded. The study was initiated by the authors and was not commissioned by any professional body. Amongst the centres which responded the majority (86%) currently have standardized protocols in place for dealing with treatment interruptions and many have extended the enactment of compensation methods to cover a wider range of tumour types than are encompassed within the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR)-defined Categories 1 and 2. Fewer of the respondents (60%) have standardized methods for dealing with treatment errors. Given that 42% of centres did not respond it is difficult to assess the fuller national picture. Some smaller departments may seek protocols or advice from larger adjacent centres, but the overall percentage of centres with systems in place may be lower than indicated from the survey results. The desirability of providing training in the radiobiological methods pertaining to treatment compensation was raised by a number of respondents.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
BJR review of the year -- 2007
Br. J. Radiol., April 1, 2008; 81(964): 265 - 269.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
B JONES and R G DALE
Radiobiological compensation of treatment errors in radiotherapy
Br. J. Radiol., April 1, 2008; 81(964): 323 - 326.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
C R Edwards, E Hamer, P J Mountford, and A J Moloney
An update survey of UK in vivo radiotherapy dosimetry practice
Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2007; 80(960): 1011 - 1014.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2007 by the British Institute of Radiology.