1033 / 1096
S1017
ESTRO 36
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
centralized patient data into a single user interface
accessible across multiple locations. Patient record
integrity could be further improved.
EP-1861 Patient Satisfaction with Radiotherapy
Services at Institute of Oncology in Ljubljana (Slovenia)
V. Zager Marciuš
1
, M. Križan
1
, A. Oklješa Lukič
1
, I. Oblak
1
1
Institute of Oncology- Ljubljana, Radiotherapy
Department, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Purpose or Objective
Purpose/Objective: The objective of the research was to
determine the degree of patients' satisfaction with
radiotherapy services at the Institute of Oncology in
Ljubljana and to obtain feedback on the quality of
performance of various professional profiles and
healthcare.
Material and Methods
Material/methods: The research makes use of the
descriptive method, reviewing and analyzing scientific
literature. Using a cross-section one-day study, we
assessed the satisfaction of patients with various
professional profiles (receptionists, nurses, radiology
engineers, doctors, radiotherapy oncologists) and with
healthcare in general. The instrument used to obtain the
study data was a questionnaire utilizing Likert’s five-point
scale of satisfaction. The questionnaire was first tested on
a small group of patients. The surveying, which was
implemented over the course of one day, was conducted
in November 2015. The study a total of 282 involved
patients out of the 359 planned, which adds up to a 78.6
% overall response rate. For the analysis and evaluation of
the data obtained, two computer programs were used,
namely Microsoft Excel 2010 and IBM SPSS Statistics 22.
The study was approved by the Commission for Ethics and
Professional Assessment of Clinical Study Protocols at the
Institute of Oncology in Ljubljana.
Results
Results: Out of the 282 participants in the study, 51.4 %
were male and 48.6 % female. 80.9 % of the patients
participating in the survey were over 50 years old. The
older and less educated patients were generally more
satisfied with both the medical staff and the services
provided. The questions in the questionnaire were divided
into three segments: work, provision of information, and
kindness. The patients were most satisfied with the work
of radiology engineers and the kindness of doctors,
radiotherapy oncologists, and nurses. The patients who
knew their doctor by name gave higher ratings for their
satisfaction with the operation of the radiotherapy
department with a statistically significant difference
(
p=0.030
). A very strong correlation coefficient (i.e. a
correlation coefficient whose value exceeds 0.600) was
found in relation to the satisfaction with the operation of
the radiotherapy department, namely in terms of work
and the provision of information by radiology engineers
and doctors’ work and kindness. All the correlations
obtained were statistically significant in terms of risk (1
%).
Conclusion
Conclusion: The assessment of a patient’s satisfaction
level is a generally recognized method of determining the
quality of healthcare services. The efficiency of a
patient’s medical treatment is determined by multiple
factors, among them being the working environment,
relationships among the medical staff, the methods of
leadership and organization, motivation and training of
the medical staff. Hence, the opinions of patients
represent a vital basis for the planning of changes and
improvements that would lead to a quality
implementation of work and medical care.
EP-1862 Alert issues in the radiotherapy
D. Eyssen
1
1
MAASTRO Clinic, Radiation Oncology, Maastricht, The
Netherlands
Purpose or Objective
There are several report available with information about
risky circumstances in healthcare. The ECRI publish a top
10 list from risk in healthcare. The ECRI is an independent,
non- profit organization who investigates the best
approach for improvement of risk, quality and cost
effectivity in patientcare. On their website the top 10
hazard list is presented.According to these lists, alarm
management is a top 10 risk. Due to the dominant human-
technic relation within the radiotherapy this risk is also an
issue in the radiotherapy.
Material and Methods
The main focus for this research is advisory towards
reliable alerts at the right, risky moment whereby the user
will receive an adequate alert and knows how to handle.
There will be an comparison of the incident database
between the radiotherapy institutes. The cadre for this
comparison is: The overkill off reminders / pop-ups /
warnings. The lack of reminders / pop-ups / warnings.The
process on the linear accelerator. There will also be a tally
between radiotherapy institutes. The main focus is to
investigate if there are different alerts between the
institutes and the way institutes deal with these alerts.
For this tally the cadre is the linear accelerator
Results
Comparison of the database
3 institutes checked their database of incidents. Are there
any incident related to Alert management? What seems is
that there are not that many incident report related to
this topic. Although the less reports about alerts
management, it was still possible to classify the reports in
four groups: Alerts that have less organizational
embedding. This can lead to alerts tiredness. No alert
present but desirable. Unclear alerts for the user. Alerts
whereof not sure what the consequences are
Tally between the radiotherapy institutes
9 institutes have shared their data and tally their alerts
on the linear accelerator. The project group collect all the
data and processed it into a document. Although there is
variation between the number of alerts popups between
the different vendors, all the institutes received 1 to 5
alerts pop ups during one single patient treatment.
There also seems a difference between the vendors. In the
comparison there is clearly visible that one suppliers
presenting less alert pop up than the other. There is no
value judgment between the vendors about the alerts and
related incidents. Also the action that should be taken by
the alerts is different between the two vendors. One
vendor is using an override while the
other is using the
OK button