Refinement of the basic treatment equivalent model to reflect radiotherapy treatment throughput using Australasian data

Australasian Radiology

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 507-513

  Delaney, Geoff ^c   Rus, Meredith ^d   Gebski, Val ^d   Lunn, A Dan ^a,b   Lunn, Mary ^b  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c LIVERPOOL HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^d NONE

Author keywords

Basic treatment equivalent; Casemix; Diagnosis related groups; Efficiency; Radiotherapy; Time and motion studies

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; LINEAR ACCELERATOR; MODEL; NEW ZEALAND; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRODUCTIVITY; RADIATION BEAM; RADIATION FIELD; RADIATION SHIELD; TASK PERFORMANCE;

AUSTRALIA; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NEOPLASMS; PARTICLE ACCELERATORS; RADIOTHERAPY; RADIOTHERAPY DOSAGE;

EID: 0004964770     PISSN: 00048461     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-1673.1999.00747.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. 1. Birdsall ML, Trivedi VM. Productivity-based relative value units for radiology procedures. A Delphi approach. J Med Syst 1983; 7: 555-65.
2. 2. Garber AM, Fuchs VR, Silverman JF. Case mix, costs, and outcomes: Differences between faculty and community services in a university hospital. N Engl J Med 1984; 310: 1231-7.
3. 3. Watts CA, Klastorin TD. The impact of case mix on hospital cost: A comparative analysis. Inquiry 1980; 17: 357-67.
4. 4. Inter-Society Council for Radiation Oncology. Radiation Oncology in Integrated Cancer Management: Report of the Inter-Society Council for Radiation Oncology, USA, 1991.
5. 5. Perez CA, Kobeissi MA, Smith BD et al. Cost-accounting in radiation oncology: A computer-based model for reimbursement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 25: 896-906.
6. 6. Delaney GP, Gebski V, Lunn AD et al. The equivalent simple treatment visit (ESTV) model does not measure radiation oncology productivity under Australian conditions. Clin Oncol 1997; 9: 245-7.
7. 7. Stanton R, Gabriel S, Berkowitz D. Validity of the 'Blue Book' utilization model for linear accelerator workload. Admin Radiol 1991; 10: 48-53.
8. 8. Delaney GP, Gebski V, Lunn AD et al. Basic treatment equivalent (BTE): A new measure of linear accelerator workload. Clin Oncol 1997; 9: 234-9.
9. 9. Delaney GP, Gebski V, Lunn AD et al. An assessment of the basic treatment equivalent (BTE) as a measure of radiotherapy workload. Clin Oncol 1997; 9: 240-4.
10. 10. Delaney GP, Rus M, Gebski V, Lunn AD, Lunn M. An Australasian assessment of the basic treatment equivalent model derived from NSW data. Australas Radiol 1999; 43: 500-6.
11. 11. Zubrod CG, Schneiderman M, Frei E et al. Appraisal of methods of the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man. J Chronic Dis 1960; 11: 7-31.
12. 12. Marascuilo L, McSweeney M. Nonparametric and Distribution-Free Methods in the Social Sciences. Brooks Cole, Monterey, CA USA, 1977.
13. 13. Super specialty services working party of the standing committee of the Australian Health Ministers Conference. Guidelines for Cancer Treatment Services. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1987.
14. 14. Barton MB, Gebski V, Manderson C, Langlands AO. Radiation therapy: Are we getting value for money? Clin Oncol 1995; 7: 287-92.
15. 15. Greene D. The cost of radiotherapy treatments on a linear accelerator. Br J Radiol 1983; 56: 189-91.
16. 16. Smith RD, Jan S, Shiell A. Efficiency considerations in the expansion of radiation therapy services. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 31: 379-85.
17. 17. Goddard M, Hutton J. The Costs of Radiotherapy in Cancer Treatment. Discussion paper 48. Centre for Health Economics, Health Economics Consortium, University of York, UK, 1988.
18. 18. Berry MP, Barton MB. Health outcomes and radiation therapy: A new era of competition. Australas Radiol 1997; 41: 1-2.
19. 19. Carrie C, Alapetite C, Mere P et al. Quality control of radiotherapeutic treatment of medulloblastoma in a multicentric study: The contribution of radiotherapy technique to tumour relapse. Radiother Oncol 1992; 24: 77-81.
20. 20. Griffiths SE, Pearcey RG, Thorogood J. Quality control in radiotherapy: The reduction of field placement errors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 13: 1583-8.
21. 21. Hunt MA, Kutcher GJ, Burman C et al. The effect of set-up uncertainties on the treatment of nasopharynx cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 27: 437-47.
22. 22. Probst H, Griffiths S. Increasing the work speed of radiographers: The effect on the accuracy of a set-up of a complex shaped cranial field, part of a matched cranio-spinal junction. Radiother Oncol 1996; 38: 241-5.
23. 23. Peters LJ. Through a glass darkly: Predicting the future of radiation oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 31: 219-25.
24. 24. Kesteloot K, Dutreix A, van der Schueren E. A model for calculating the costs of in vivo dosimetry and portal imaging in radiotherapy departments. Radiother Oncol 1993; 28: 108-17.
25. 25. Kesteloot K, Louwet G, Vande Velde G, van der Schueren E. Radiother Oncol 1994; 31: 151-60.