Combined planning and delivery systems

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

In a multivendor solution, the protocols on how systems interact are, by necessity, well dened and published. e design of a quality assurance (QA) program to monitor the correct hando of information from system to system is relatively straightforward; failure modes and their eects can be determined based on this information. e situation is more challenging for combined systems. e interaction between system components typically is handled internally via the vendor-provided soware. Computer-controlled delivery systems, although pre - venting manual entry errors, can also contribute to errors. e report of AAPM TG-35 (Purdy et al. 1993) discusses many aspects of QA of computer-controlled radiation delivery systems. e recent paper of Fraass (2008) makes a clear statement on the status of QA management at this time in our eld, and deserves to be cited in full: e knowledge, documentation, and understanding of control system architecture, design, and implementation that a typical user has is quite limited, making eective testing dicult. TG-35 recommends that vendors provide reasons for changes, bug x descriptions, modication details, operational changes, site-dependent and user-accessible data or soware which may be aected, testing procedures, revised specications, support documentation, operations manuals, and beta test results with any soware installation or update. Unfortunately, little of this is typically available, although vendor adherence to TG-35 recommendations would make possible signicantly more eective testing and use by the user.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationQuality and Safety in Radiotherapy
PublisherCRC Press
Pages353-356
Number of pages4
ISBN (Electronic)9781439804377
ISBN (Print)9781439804360
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Quality assurance
planning
delivery
assurance
Planning
Documentation
documentation
Testing
Time Management
Information Systems
venting
Failure modes
failure modes
recommendations
entry
Radiation
installing
Control systems
radiation
interactions

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Physics and Astronomy(all)

Cite this

Dieterich, S. (2010). Combined planning and delivery systems. In Quality and Safety in Radiotherapy (pp. 353-356). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b10448

Combined planning and delivery systems. / Dieterich, Sonja.

Quality and Safety in Radiotherapy. CRC Press, 2010. p. 353-356.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Dieterich, S 2010, Combined planning and delivery systems. in Quality and Safety in Radiotherapy. CRC Press, pp. 353-356. https://doi.org/10.1201/b10448
Dieterich S. Combined planning and delivery systems. In Quality and Safety in Radiotherapy. CRC Press. 2010. p. 353-356 https://doi.org/10.1201/b10448
Dieterich, Sonja. / Combined planning and delivery systems. Quality and Safety in Radiotherapy. CRC Press, 2010. pp. 353-356
@inbook{4dde1d9f2f6b4b48a11d7341735b9825,
title = "Combined planning and delivery systems",
abstract = "In a multivendor solution, the protocols on how systems interact are, by necessity, well dened and published. e design of a quality assurance (QA) program to monitor the correct hando of information from system to system is relatively straightforward; failure modes and their eects can be determined based on this information. e situation is more challenging for combined systems. e interaction between system components typically is handled internally via the vendor-provided soware. Computer-controlled delivery systems, although pre - venting manual entry errors, can also contribute to errors. e report of AAPM TG-35 (Purdy et al. 1993) discusses many aspects of QA of computer-controlled radiation delivery systems. e recent paper of Fraass (2008) makes a clear statement on the status of QA management at this time in our eld, and deserves to be cited in full: e knowledge, documentation, and understanding of control system architecture, design, and implementation that a typical user has is quite limited, making eective testing dicult. TG-35 recommends that vendors provide reasons for changes, bug x descriptions, modication details, operational changes, site-dependent and user-accessible data or soware which may be aected, testing procedures, revised specications, support documentation, operations manuals, and beta test results with any soware installation or update. Unfortunately, little of this is typically available, although vendor adherence to TG-35 recommendations would make possible signicantly more eective testing and use by the user.",
author = "Sonja Dieterich",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1201/b10448",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781439804360",
pages = "353--356",
booktitle = "Quality and Safety in Radiotherapy",
publisher = "CRC Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Combined planning and delivery systems

AU - Dieterich, Sonja

PY - 2010/1/1

Y1 - 2010/1/1

N2 - In a multivendor solution, the protocols on how systems interact are, by necessity, well dened and published. e design of a quality assurance (QA) program to monitor the correct hando of information from system to system is relatively straightforward; failure modes and their eects can be determined based on this information. e situation is more challenging for combined systems. e interaction between system components typically is handled internally via the vendor-provided soware. Computer-controlled delivery systems, although pre - venting manual entry errors, can also contribute to errors. e report of AAPM TG-35 (Purdy et al. 1993) discusses many aspects of QA of computer-controlled radiation delivery systems. e recent paper of Fraass (2008) makes a clear statement on the status of QA management at this time in our eld, and deserves to be cited in full: e knowledge, documentation, and understanding of control system architecture, design, and implementation that a typical user has is quite limited, making eective testing dicult. TG-35 recommends that vendors provide reasons for changes, bug x descriptions, modication details, operational changes, site-dependent and user-accessible data or soware which may be aected, testing procedures, revised specications, support documentation, operations manuals, and beta test results with any soware installation or update. Unfortunately, little of this is typically available, although vendor adherence to TG-35 recommendations would make possible signicantly more eective testing and use by the user.

AB - In a multivendor solution, the protocols on how systems interact are, by necessity, well dened and published. e design of a quality assurance (QA) program to monitor the correct hando of information from system to system is relatively straightforward; failure modes and their eects can be determined based on this information. e situation is more challenging for combined systems. e interaction between system components typically is handled internally via the vendor-provided soware. Computer-controlled delivery systems, although pre - venting manual entry errors, can also contribute to errors. e report of AAPM TG-35 (Purdy et al. 1993) discusses many aspects of QA of computer-controlled radiation delivery systems. e recent paper of Fraass (2008) makes a clear statement on the status of QA management at this time in our eld, and deserves to be cited in full: e knowledge, documentation, and understanding of control system architecture, design, and implementation that a typical user has is quite limited, making eective testing dicult. TG-35 recommends that vendors provide reasons for changes, bug x descriptions, modication details, operational changes, site-dependent and user-accessible data or soware which may be aected, testing procedures, revised specications, support documentation, operations manuals, and beta test results with any soware installation or update. Unfortunately, little of this is typically available, although vendor adherence to TG-35 recommendations would make possible signicantly more eective testing and use by the user.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055957946&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85055957946&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1201/b10448

DO - 10.1201/b10448

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85055957946

SN - 9781439804360

SP - 353

EP - 356

BT - Quality and Safety in Radiotherapy

PB - CRC Press

ER -