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. ^

IN-VIVO CT DOSIMETRY DURING VIRTUAL COLONOSCOPY

Virtual colonoscopy (VC) is a minimally invasive means for identifying colorectal polyps and colorectal lesions by insufflating a patient’s bowel, applying contrast agent via rectal catheter, and performing multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) scans. The technique is recommended for colonic health screening by the American Cancer Society but not funded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) partially because of potential risks from radiation exposure. To date, no in‐vivo organ dose measurements have been performed for MDCT scans; thus, the accuracy of any current dose estimates is currently unknown. In this study, two TLDs were affixed to the inner lumen of standard rectal catheters used in VC, and in-vivo rectal dose measurements were obtained within 6 VC patients. In order to calculate rectal dose, TLD-100 powder response was characterized at diagnostic doses such that appropriate correction factors could be determined for VC. A third-order polynomial regression with a goodness of fit factor of R2=0.992 was constructed from this data. Rectal dose measurements were acquired with TLDs during simulated VC within a modified anthropomorphic phantom configured to represent three sizes of patients undergoing VC. The measured rectal doses decreased in an exponential manner with increasing phantom effective diameter, with R2=0.993 for the exponential regression model and a maximum percent coefficient of variation (%CoV) of 4.33%. In-vivo measurements yielded rectal doses ranged from that decreased exponentially with increasing patient effective diameter, in a manner that was also favorably predicted by the size specific dose estimate (SSDE) model for all VC patients that were of similar age, body composition, and TLD placement. The measured rectal dose within a younger patient was favorably predicted by the anthropomorphic phantom dose regression model due to similarities in the percentages of highly attenuating material at the respective measurement locations and in the placement of the TLDs. The in-vivo TLD response did not increase in %CoV with decreasing dose, and the largest %CoV was 10.0%.

Assessment of Collimator Jaw Optimization in Reducing Normal Tissue Irradiation with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

Purpose: To evaluate normal tissue dose reduction in step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on the Varian 2100 platform by tracking the multileaf collimator (MLC) apertures with the accelerator jaws. Methods: Clinical radiation treatment plans for 10 thoracic, 3 pediatric and 3 head and neck patients were converted to plans with the jaws tracking each segment’s MLC apertures. Each segment was then renormalized to account for the change in collimator scatter to obtain target coverage within 1% of that in the original plan. The new plans were compared to the original plans in a commercial radiation treatment planning system (TPS). Reduction in normal tissue dose was evaluated in the new plan by using the parameters V5, V10, and V20 in the cumulative dose-volume histogram for the following structures: total lung minus GTV (gross target volume), heart, esophagus, spinal cord, liver, parotids, and brainstem. In order to validate the accuracy of our beam model, MLC transmission measurements were made and compared to those predicted by the TPS. Results: The greatest change between the original plan and new plan occurred at lower dose levels. The reduction in V20 was never more than 6.3% and was typically less than 1% for all patients. The reduction in V5 was 16.7% maximum and was typically less than 3% for all patients. The variation in normal tissue dose reduction was not predictable, and we found no clear parameters that indicated which patients would benefit most from jaw tracking. Our TPS model of MLC transmission agreed with measurements with absolute transmission differences of less than 0.1 % and thus uncertainties in the model did not contribute significantly to the uncertainty in the dose determination. Conclusion: The amount of dose reduction achieved by collimating the jaws around each MLC aperture in step-and-shoot IMRT does not appear to be clinically significant.