Investigation of RFID-based Workflow Analysis

Abstract

Purpose/Objective(s)The purpose of this work is to present our initial implementation of a radiofrequency identification (RFID) system as a tool to investigate linear accelerator performance and treatment workflow. Our ultimate goal is to answer the question; what are the benefits and barriers to using an RFID system clinically.Materials/MethodsTwo treatment vaults in our department house a TrueBeam and iX LINAC with VMAT capability and have been equipped with a RFID patient verification and monitoring system. Both linacs are used to treat similar cases. Patients are given transponder cards their first day of treatment and asked to carry their cards at all times. Web based software utilizing the RFID platform records timestamps when patients are in certain locations around the clinic. For this project we are interested in the treatment vaults. Timestamps are automatically recorded when patients enter or leave a room. Upon entering the vault, a therapist confirms that the patient RFID location information is congruent with the patient information loaded on the LINAC console by the push of a button on a touch screen monitor. Patients’ treatment (total time in the vault) were categorized as a function of LINAC, treatment site, and delivery type. Involved Staff and patients were interviewed to assess their perceptions of the RFID implementation.ResultsTo date we have analyzed over 500 fractions. Staff and patient comments were generally positive towards implementation of the system with the main weakness being that patients need to outwardly carry their RFID cards at all times. It has been noted that some patients will not get on the treatment table until they know they have been verified by the RFID system. Per fraction, the iX and TrueBeam machines had median vault times of 11.2 minutes (range: 4.9 to 56.0 minutes) and 10.0 min (range: 5.5 to 49.0 minutes), respectively. Median vault times for VMAT prostate cases and static field IMRT prostate were 10.3 and 10.1 minutes, respectively. Median vault times for VMAT head and neck cases versus static field IMRT head and neck cases were 11.4 and 13.0 minutes, respectively.ConclusionsMore complex cases, such as head and neck, were treated more efficiently with a VMAT compared to static field IMRT. Treatment efficiency for simpler cases, such as prostate, was independent of delivery type. Overall, the TrueBeam is slightly more efficient than the iX machine. The RFID system has been largely adopted by staff and patients without being a department level initiative. Given this initial experience with the RFID system; we are planning to use the system for evaluating workflow performance towards quality/safety, resources allocation, and efficiency improvements. Purpose/Objective(s)The purpose of this work is to present our initial implementation of a radiofrequency identification (RFID) system as a tool to investigate linear accelerator performance and treatment workflow. Our ultimate goal is to answer the question; what are the benefits and barriers to using an RFID system clinically. The purpose of this work is to present our initial implementation of a radiofrequency identification (RFID) system as a tool to investigate linear accelerator performance and treatment workflow. Our ultimate goal is to answer the question; what are the benefits and barriers to using an RFID system clinically. Materials/MethodsTwo treatment vaults in our department house a TrueBeam and iX LINAC with VMAT capability and have been equipped with a RFID patient verification and monitoring system. Both linacs are used to treat similar cases. Patients are given transponder cards their first day of treatment and asked to carry their cards at all times. Web based software utilizing the RFID platform records timestamps when patients are in certain locations around the clinic. For this project we are interested in the treatment vaults. Timestamps are automatically recorded when patients enter or leave a room. Upon entering the vault, a therapist confirms that the patient RFID location information is congruent with the patient information loaded on the LINAC console by the push of a button on a touch screen monitor. Patients’ treatment (total time in the vault) were categorized as a function of LINAC, treatment site, and delivery type. Involved Staff and patients were interviewed to assess their perceptions of the RFID implementation. Two treatment vaults in our department house a TrueBeam and iX LINAC with VMAT capability and have been equipped with a RFID patient verification and monitoring system. Both linacs are used to treat similar cases. Patients are given transponder cards their first day of treatment and asked to carry their cards at all times. Web based software utilizing the RFID platform records timestamps when patients are in certain locations around the clinic. For this project we are interested in the treatment vaults. Timestamps are automatically recorded when patients enter or leave a room. Upon entering the vault, a therapist confirms that the patient RFID location information is congruent with the patient information loaded on the LINAC console by the push of a button on a touch screen monitor. Patients’ treatment (total time in the vault) were categorized as a function of LINAC, treatment site, and delivery type. Involved Staff and patients were interviewed to assess their perceptions of the RFID implementation. ResultsTo date we have analyzed over 500 fractions. Staff and patient comments were generally positive towards implementation of the system with the main weakness being that patients need to outwardly carry their RFID cards at all times. It has been noted that some patients will not get on the treatment table until they know they have been verified by the RFID system. Per fraction, the iX and TrueBeam machines had median vault times of 11.2 minutes (range: 4.9 to 56.0 minutes) and 10.0 min (range: 5.5 to 49.0 minutes), respectively. Median vault times for VMAT prostate cases and static field IMRT prostate were 10.3 and 10.1 minutes, respectively. Median vault times for VMAT head and neck cases versus static field IMRT head and neck cases were 11.4 and 13.0 minutes, respectively. To date we have analyzed over 500 fractions. Staff and patient comments were generally positive towards implementation of the system with the main weakness being that patients need to outwardly carry their RFID cards at all times. It has been noted that some patients will not get on the treatment table until they know they have been verified by the RFID system. Per fraction, the iX and TrueBeam machines had median vault times of 11.2 minutes (range: 4.9 to 56.0 minutes) and 10.0 min (range: 5.5 to 49.0 minutes), respectively. Median vault times for VMAT prostate cases and static field IMRT prostate were 10.3 and 10.1 minutes, respectively. Median vault times for VMAT head and neck cases versus static field IMRT head and neck cases were 11.4 and 13.0 minutes, respectively. ConclusionsMore complex cases, such as head and neck, were treated more efficiently with a VMAT compared to static field IMRT. Treatment efficiency for simpler cases, such as prostate, was independent of delivery type. Overall, the TrueBeam is slightly more efficient than the iX machine. The RFID system has been largely adopted by staff and patients without being a department level initiative. Given this initial experience with the RFID system; we are planning to use the system for evaluating workflow performance towards quality/safety, resources allocation, and efficiency improvements. More complex cases, such as head and neck, were treated more efficiently with a VMAT compared to static field IMRT. Treatment efficiency for simpler cases, such as prostate, was independent of delivery type. Overall, the TrueBeam is slightly more efficient than the iX machine. The RFID system has been largely adopted by staff and patients without being a department level initiative. Given this initial experience with the RFID system; we are planning to use the system for evaluating workflow performance towards quality/safety, resources allocation, and efficiency improvements.