Improving Quality Assurance in a Radiation Oncology Using ARIA Visual Care Path

Abstract

Purpose: Errors and incidents may occur at any point within radiotherapy (RT). The aim of the present retrospective analysis is to evaluate the impact of a customized ARIA Visual Care Path (VCP) on quality assurance (QA) for the RT process. Materials and Methods: The ARIA VCP was implemented in June 2019. The following tasks were customized and independently verified (by independent checks from radiation oncologists, medical physics, and radiation therapists): simulation, treatment planning, treatment start verification, and treatment completion. A retrospective analysis of 105 random and unselected patients was performed, and 945 tasks were reviewed. Patients’ reports were categorized based on treatment years period: 2019–2020 (A); 2021 (B); and 2022–2023 (C). The QA metrics included data for timeliness of task completion and data for minor and major incidents. The major incidents were defined as incorrect prescriptions of RT dose, the use of different immobilization systems during RT compared to the simulation, the absence of surface-guided RT data for patients’ positioning, incorrect dosimetric QA for treatment plans, and failure to complete RT as originally planned. A sample size of approximately 100 was able to obtain an upper limit of 95% confidence interval below 5–10% in the case of zero or one major incident. Results: From June 2019 to December 2023, 5300 patients were treated in our RT department, an average of 1300 patients per year. For the purpose of this analysis, one hundred and five patients were chosen for the study and were subsequently evaluated. All RT staff achieved a 100% compliance rate in the ARIA VCP timely completion. A total of 36 patients were treated in Period A, 34 in Period B, and 35 in Period C. No major incidents were identified, demonstrating a major incident rate of 0.0% (95% CI 0.0–3.5%). A total of 26 out of 945 analyzed tasks (3.8%) were reported as minor incidents: absence of positioning photo in 32 cases, lack of patients’ photo, and absence of plan documents in 4 cases. When comparing periods, incidents were statistically less frequent in Period C. Conclusions: Although the present analysis has some limitations, its outcomes demonstrated that software for the RT workflow, which is fully integrated with both the record-and-verify and treatment planning systems, can effectively manage the patient’s care path. Implementing the ARIA VCP improved the efficiency of the RT care path workflow, reducing the risk of major and minor incidents.