| Abstract: | The increasing popularity of 3‐D planning leads to procedural alterations as both workload and resource utilization increase. Although the complexity of the techniques has increased (as well as the set‐up and treatment times), the workload statistics must still include the number of fields treated. It is commonly known that machine statistics of fields treated per day do not accurately represent workload because there are major differences between techniques. A mantle treatment technique and an opposed spine technique both have (statistically) two fields, although the set‐up requirements and treatment times are very different. A basic treatment equivalent (BTE) formula was reported in early 1999 by Delaney et al. and incorporates a large number of variables inherent in patient treatment. The formula considers different factors that affect overall treatment time, and aims to represent a more accurate treatment time indicator. The aim of introducing the BTE into the Department of Radiation Oncology at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was to create a more accurate scheduling system and even out workloads on all treatment units. Therefore the BTE formula was used to assess accuracy of treatment times in order to determine if the values could be relied upon as accurate time indicators. Patients undergoing a variety of treatment techniques were timed for the duration of their treatment procedure, and their treatment times compared to the time estimated using the BTE formula. A few minor alterations were made to the equation for treatment units with multi‐leaf collimation (MLC). A trial conducted at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital found that, using the BTE formula (with a few modifications required for the MLC treatment units), of 60 patients timed for the duration of their set‐up and treatment, 85% of values were in the range of ± 3 min, and 95% were in the range of ± 5 min of the estimated times. Through the routine use of the BTE equation a more sensitive indication of treatment machine workload can be found. Advantages such as: (i) a more accurate measure of treatment workload (for comparison with other departments) and (ii) increased scheduling accuracy will succeed over the currently accepted system of fields per hour. |
