An Australasian assessment of the basic treatment equivalent model derived from New South Wales data

Australasian Radiology

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 500-506

  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 FIELD; TASK PERFORMANCE;

DATA COLLECTION; DIAGNOSIS-RELATED GROUPS; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NEOPLASMS; NEW SOUTH WALES; PARTICLE ACCELERATORS; RADIOTHERAPY;

EID: 0032698378     PISSN: 00048461     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-1673.1999.00746.x     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. 1. Peters U. Through a glass darkly: Predicting the future of radiation oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 31: 219-25.
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. Birdsall ML, Trivedi VM. Productivity-based relative value units for radiology procedures. A Delphi approach. J Med Syst 1983; 7: 555-65.
5. 5. 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.
6. 6. 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.
7. 7. Super specialty services working party of the standing committee of the Australian Health Ministers Conference. Guidelines for Cancer Treatment Services. Australian Government Publishing Services, Canberra, 1987.
8. 8. Marascullo L, McSweeney M. Nonparametric and Distribution-Free Methods in the Social Sciences. Brooks Cole, Monterey, CA, USA, 1977.
9. 9. Delaney GP, Rus M, Gebski V, Lunn AD, Lunn M. The refinement of the basic treatment equivalent model to reflect radiotherapy treatment throughput using Australasian data. Australas Radiol 1999; 43: 507-13.
10. 10. 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.
11. 11. 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.
12. 12. 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.
13. 13. 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.
14. 14. 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.