Abstract
Emergency‐off systems (EOS) are essential to the safe operation of medical accelerators and other high‐risk equipment. To assure reliable functioning, some states require weekly tests; others permit monthly, tri‐monthly or even six‐monthly tests, while some do not specify test intervals. We investigate the relative safety of the various test schedules by computing the fraction of time during which a nonfunctional state of the EOS may remain undetected. Special attention is given to the effect of flexibility (i.e., to regulations that specify the number of tests that have to be done in any given time interval, but allow a range within the interval during which a test can be done). Compared to strict test intervals, a schedule that provides flexibility increases risk only marginally. Performing tests on any arbitrary day of the week when weekly tests are required increases the time span during which a nonfunctionality goes undetected by only 17%, compared to an exact one‐week schedule. The same ratio applies for monthly tests. For a three‐month schedule, the relative risk increases by only 2% if tests are done on an arbitrarily chosen day during each due‐month, compared to tests done on an exact three‐month schedule. The most irregular time intervals possible in a three‐calendar month schedule increase the relative risk by 11%. For the six‐month and the 12‐month schedule the ratio of risks is even smaller. The relative risk is virtually independent of the mean time between failures of the EOS, but the absolute risk decreases in proportion the mean time between failures. Adherence to strict, resource‐intensive test intervals provides little extra safety compared to flexible intervals that require the same number of tests per year. Regulations should be changed to provide the practicality offered by flexible test schedules. Any additional increase in patient safety could be achieved by strict regulations concerning reliability of emergency‐stop (e‐stop) systems.PACS numbers: 87.55.N‐, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.bd
Highlights
Brezovich et al.: Safety considerations concerning Emergency-off systems (EOS) tests to TG 40,(14) while giving the physicist some discretion
While one may argue about the merits of frequent EOS tests, the requirement for strict test intervals puts substantial strain on personnel and resources compared to a flexible schedule which would allow tests to be done within a reasonable time span
We have shown that rigid test intervals for emergency-off systems provide negligible gain in safety compared to flexible schedules that specify the over-all frequency of tests, but allow time intervals for doing the individual tests
Summary
Brezovich et al.: Safety considerations concerning EOS tests to TG 40,(14) while giving the physicist some discretion. California requires a Radiation Safety and Protection Program, but is nonspecific concerning the EOS. The wide range of test schedules may have been influenced by the AAPM and CRCPD (Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors) recommendations effective at the time when the State regulations were passed. The AAPM report 13 of 1984 suggests weekly tests;(16) TG 40 recommends monthly tests;(14) TG 142(17) accepts manufacturers’ recommendations, while the CRCPD suggests three-month intervals.[18]. While one may argue about the merits of frequent EOS tests, the requirement for strict test intervals puts substantial strain on personnel and resources compared to a flexible schedule which would allow tests to be done within a reasonable time span. One time our department, which has to follow a three-month schedule, was cited for exceeding the due-date by one day
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
