Patient classification system: An integrated method for measuring nursing intensity and optimizing resource allocation

A patient classification system was developed integrating a patient acuity instrument with a computerized nursing distribution method based on a linear programming model. The system was designed for real-time measurement of patient acuity (workload) and allocation of nursing personnel to optimize the utilization of resources.^ The acuity instrument was a prototype tool with eight categories of patients defined by patient severity and nursing intensity parameters. From this tool, the demand for nursing care was defined in patient points with one point equal to one hour of RN time. Validity and reliability of the instrument was determined as follows: (1) Content validity by a panel of expert nurses; (2) predictive validity through a paired t-test analysis of preshift and postshift categorization of patients; (3) initial reliability by a one month pilot of the instrument in a practice setting; and (4) interrater reliability by the Kappa statistic.^ The nursing distribution system was a linear programming model using a branch and bound technique for obtaining integer solutions. The objective function was to minimize the total number of nursing personnel used by optimally assigning the staff to meet the acuity needs of the units. A penalty weight was used as a coefficient of the objective function variables to define priorities for allocation of staff.^ The demand constraints were requirements to meet the total acuity points needed for each unit and to have a minimum number of RNs on each unit. Supply constraints were: (1) total availability of each type of staff and the value of that staff member (value was determined relative to that type of staff's ability to perform the job function of an RN (i.e., value for eight hours RN = 8 points, LVN = 6 points); (2) number of personnel available for floating between units.^ The capability of the model to assign staff quantitatively and qualitatively equal to the manual method was established by a thirty day comparison. Sensitivity testing demonstrated appropriate adjustment of the optimal solution to changes in penalty coefficients in the objective function and to acuity totals in the demand constraints.^ Further investigation of the model documented: correct adjustment of assignments in response to staff value changes; and cost minimization by an addition of a dollar coefficient to the objective function. ^

Verification of intensity modulated stereotactic radiotherapy using Monte Carlo calculations and EPID dosimetry

The purpose of this work was to develop a comprehensive IMSRT QA procedure that examined, using EPID dosimetry and Monte Carlo (MC) calculations, each step in the treatment planning and delivery process. These steps included verification of the field shaping, treatment planning system (RTPS) dose calculations, and patient dose delivery. Verification of each step in the treatment process is assumed to result in correct dose delivery to the patient. ^ The accelerator MC model was verified against commissioning data for field sizes from 0.8 × 0.8 cm 2 to 10 × 10 cm 2. Depth doses were within 2% local percent difference (LPD) in low gradient regions and 1 mm distance to agreement (DTA) in high gradient regions. Lateral profiles were within 2% LPD in low gradient regions and 1 mm DTA in high gradient regions. Calculated output factors were within 1% of measurement for field sizes ≥1 × 1 cm2. ^ The measured and calculated pretreatment EPID dose patterns were compared using criteria of 5% LPD, 1 mm DTA, or 2% of central axis pixel value with ≥95% of compared points required to pass for successful verification. Pretreatment field verification resulted in 97% percent of the points passing. ^ The RTPS and Monte Carlo phantom dose calculations were compared using 5% LPD, 2 mm DTA, or 2% of the maximum dose with ≥95% of compared points required passing for successful verification. RTPS calculation verification resulted in 97% percent of the points passing. ^ The measured and calculated EPID exit dose patterns were compared using criteria of 5% LPD, 1 mm DTA, or 2% of central axis pixel value with ≥95% of compared points required to pass for successful verification. Exit dose verification resulted in 97% percent of the points passing. ^ Each of the processes above verified an individual step in the treatment planning and delivery process. The combination of these verification steps ensures accurate treatment delivery to the patient. This work shows that Monte Carlo calculations and EPID dosimetry can be used to quantitatively verify IMSRT treatments resulting in improved patient care and, potentially, improved clinical outcome. ^

Use of light intensity, temperature, and humidity to verify exposure location

Research studies on the association between exposures to air contaminants and disease frequently use worn dosimeters to measure the concentration of the contaminant of interest. But investigation of exposure determinants requires additional knowledge beyond concentration, i.e., knowledge about personal activity such as whether the exposure occurred in a building or outdoors. Current studies frequently depend upon manual activity logging to record location. This study's purpose was to evaluate the use of a worn data logger recording three environmental parameters—temperature, humidity, and light intensity—as well as time of day, to determine indoor or outdoor location, with an ultimate aim of eliminating the need to manually log location or at least providing a method to verify such logs. For this study, data collection was limited to a single geographical area (Houston, Texas metropolitan area) during a single season (winter) using a HOBO H8 four-channel data logger. Data for development of a Location Model were collected using the logger for deliberate sampling of programmed activities in outdoor, building, and vehicle locations at various times of day. The Model was developed by analyzing the distributions of environmental parameters by location and time to establish a prioritized set of cut points for assessing locations. The final Model consisted of four "processors" that varied these priorities and cut points. Data to evaluate the Model were collected by wearing the logger during "typical days" while maintaining a location log. The Model was tested by feeding the typical day data into each processor and generating assessed locations for each record. These assessed locations were then compared with true locations recorded in the manual log to determine accurate versus erroneous assessments. The utility of each processor was evaluated by calculating overall error rates across all times of day, and calculating individual error rates by time of day. Unfortunately, the error rates were large, such that there would be no benefit in using the Model. Another analysis in which assessed locations were classified as either indoor (including both building and vehicle) or outdoor yielded slightly lower error rates that still precluded any benefit of the Model's use.^