Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A national survey on the medical physics workload of external beam radiotherapy in Japan
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A national survey on the medical physics workload of external beam radiotherapy in Japan
Do you wish to request the book?
A national survey on the medical physics workload of external beam radiotherapy in Japan
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A national survey on the medical physics workload of external beam radiotherapy in Japan
2023
Overview
Several staffing models are used to determine the required medical physics staffing, including radiotherapy technologists, of radiation oncology departments. However, since Japanese facilities tend to be smaller in scale than foreign ones, those models might not apply to Japan. Therefore, in this study, we surveyed workloads in Japan to estimate the optimal medical physics staffing in external beam radiotherapy. A total of 837 facilities were surveyed to collect information regarding radiotherapy techniques and medical physics specialists (RTMPs). The survey covered facility information, staffing, patient volume, equipment volume, workload and quality assurance (QA) status. Full-time equivalent (FTE) factors were estimated from the workload and compared with several models. Responses were received from 579 facilities (69.2%). The median annual patient volume was 369 at designated cancer care hospitals (DCCHs) and 252 across all facilities. In addition, the median FTE of RTMPs was 4.6 at DCCHs and 3.0 at all sites, and the average QA implementation rate for radiotherapy equipment was 69.4%. Furthermore, advanced treatment technologies have increased workloads, particularly in computed tomography simulations and treatment planning tasks. Compared to published models, larger facilities (over 500 annual patients) had a shortage of medical physics staff. In very small facilities (about 140 annual patients), the medical physics staffing requirement was estimated to be 0.5 FTE, implying that employing a full-time medical physicist would be inefficient. However, ensuring the quality of radiotherapy is an important issue, given the limited number of RTMPs. Our study provides insights into optimizing staffing and resource allocation in radiotherapy departments.
