{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026262626262626262, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00808080808080808, 'mean_word_length': 5.7835616438356166, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A systems-based operational assessment of external beam radiotherapy.

PURPOSE
Advanced technologies have led to improvements in modern radiotherapy over the years. However, adoption of advanced technologies can present challenges to existing clinical operations and negatively impact safety. The purpose of this work is to perform an assessment of modern radiotherapy for the operational objectives of safety, efficiency, and financial viability.


METHODS
This work focuses on external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). The operational assessment included department management, treatment planning, treatment delivery, and associated workflows for three equipment configurations of Ethos, Halcyon, and TrueBeam with the ARIA information system, Eclipse treatment planning, and IDENTIFY surface guidance. Systems-theoretic process analysis (STPA) was used to analyze the related workflows. Control actions, unsafe contexts of those control actions, and associated causal scenarios that can lead to unsafe radiation and non-radiation physical injury (safety objective), reduced treatment capacity (efficiency objective), and costs that exceed budget (financial viability objective) were identified.


RESULTS
The number of control actions (and causal scenarios) were 18 (254), 18 (267), and 20 (267) for the equipment configurations of Halcyon, TrueBeam, and Ethos, respectively. The extent that safety, efficiency, and financial viability were impacted is similar across the different equipment configurations but there were some noteworthy differences related to information transfer and workflow bottlenecks potentially impacting access to care. Seventy five percent of the scenarios across all three configurations were related to safety. Overall, 29% of the scenarios impacted more than one operational objective and 48% were related to human decisions during the process of care. Planned or unplanned process changes were responsible for 8% of the causal scenarios.


CONCLUSIONS
Broad-based clinical improvements may be realized by addressing causal scenarios that impact multiple objectives. Redesigning the roles and responsibilities of the clinical team and some aspects of the radiotherapy workflow may be helpful to fully realize the benefits of advanced technologies. Radiotherapy may benefit from additional tools to improve the consistency between decisions and actions when system or process changes occur. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.