Commissioning an Anthropomorphic Spine and Lung Phantom for Remote Dose Verification of Institutions Participating in RTOG 0631

The RPC developed a new phantom to ensure comparable and consistent radiation administration in spinal radiosurgery clinical trials. This study assessed the phantom’s dosimetric and anatomic utility. The ‘spine phantom’ is a water filled thorax with anatomy encountered in spinal radiosurgery: target volume, vertebral column, spinal canal, esophagus, heart, and lungs. The dose to the target volume was measured with axial and sagittal planes of radiochromic film and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). The dose distributions were measured with the radiochromic film calibrated to the absolute dose measured by the TLD. Four irradiations were administered: a four angle box plan, a seven angle conformal plan, a seven angle IMRT plan, and a nine angle IMRT plan (denoted as IMRT plan #1 and plan #2, respectively). In each plan, at least 95% of the defined tumor volume received 8 Gy. For each irradiation the planned and administered dose distributions were registered via pinpricks, and compared using point dose measurements, dose profiles, isodose distributions, and gamma analyses. Based on previous experience at the RPC, a gamma analysis was considering passing if greater than 95% of pixels passed the criteria of 5% dose difference and 3 mm distance-to-agreement. Each irradiation showed acceptable agreement in the qualitative assessments and exceeded the 95% passing rate at the 5% / 3 mm criteria, except IMRT plan #1, which was determined to have been poorly localized during treatment administration. The measured and planned dose distributions demonstrated acceptable agreement at the 5% / 3 mm criteria, and the spine phantom was determined to be a useful tool for the remote assessment of an institution’s treatment planning and dose delivery regimen.

Evaluating the relative status of health and safety programs for minority academic and research institutions

A variety of occupational hazards are indigenous to academic and research institutions, ranging from traditional life safety concerns, such as fire safety and fall protection, to specialized occupational hygiene issues such as exposure to carcinogenic chemicals, radiation sources, and infectious microorganisms. Institutional health and safety programs are constantly challenged to establish and maintain adequate protective measures for this wide array of hazards. A unique subset of academic and research institutions are classified as historically Black universities which provide educational opportunities primarily to minority populations. State funded minority schools receive less resources than their non-minority counterparts, resulting in a reduced ability to provide certain programs and services. Comprehensive health and safety services for these institutions may be one of the services compromised, resulting in uncontrolled exposures to various workplace hazards. Such a result would also be contrary to the national health status objectives to improve preventive health care measures for minority populations.^ To determine if differences exist, a cross-sectional survey was performed to evaluate the relative status of health and safety programs present within minority and non-minority state-funded academic and research institutions. Data were obtained from direct mail questionnaires, supplemented by data from publicly available sources. Parameters for comparison included reported numbers of full and part-time health and safety staff, reported OSHA 200 log (or equivalent) values, and reported workers compensation experience modifiers. The relative impact of institutional minority status, institution size, and OSHA regulatory environment, was also assessed. Additional health and safety program descriptors were solicited in an attempt to develop a preliminary profile of the hazards present in this unique work setting.^ Survey forms were distributed to 24 minority and 51 non-minority institutions. A total of 72% of the questionnaires were returned, with 58% of the minority and 78% of the non-minority institutions participating. The mean number of reported full-time health and safety staff for the responding minority institutions was determined to be 1.14, compared to 3.12 for the responding non-minority institutions. Data distribution variances were stabilized using log-normal transformations, and although subsequent analysis indicated statistically significant differences, the differences were found to be predicted by institution size only, and not by minority status or OSHA regulatory environment. Similar results were noted for estimated full-time equivalent health and safety staffing levels. Significant differences were not noted between reported OSHA 200 log (or equivalent) data, and a lack of information provided on workers compensation experience modifiers prevented comparisons on insurance premium expenditures. Other health and safety program descriptive information obtained served to validate the study's presupposition that the inclusion criteria would encompass those organizations with occupational risks from all four major hazard categories. Worker medical surveillance programs appeared to exist at most institutions, but the specific tests completed were not readily identifiable.^ The results of this study serve as a preliminary description of the health and safety programs for a unique set of workplaces have not been previously investigated. Numerous opportunities for further research are noted, including efforts to quantify the relative amount of each hazard present, the further definition of the programs reported to be in place, determination of other means to measure health outcomes on campuses, and comparisons among other culturally diverse workplaces. ^

Environmental sustainability and the human element: Decision making in National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers and Practice Greenhealth subscribing institutions

Background. Various aspects of sustainability have taken root in the hospital environment; however, decisions to pursue sustainable practices within the framework of a master plan are not fully developed in National Cancer Institute (NCI) -designated cancer centers and subscribing institutions to the Practice Greenhealth (PGH) listserv.^ Methods. This cross sectional study was designed to identify the organizational characteristics each study group pursed to implement sustainability practices, describe the barriers they encountered and reasons behind their choices for undertaking certain sustainability practices. A web-based questionnaire was pilot tested, and then sent out to 64 NCI-designated cancer centers and 1638 subscribing institutions to the PGH listserv.^ Results. Complete responses were received from 39 NCI-designated cancer centers and 58 subscribing institutions to the PGH listserv. NCI-designated cancer centers reported greater progress in integrating sustainability criteria into design and construction projects than hospitals of institutions subscribing to the PHG listserv (p-value = <0.05). Statistically significant differences were also identified between these two study groups in undertaking work life options, conducting energy usage assessments, developing energy conservation and optimization plans, implementing solid waste and hazardous waste minimization programs, using energy efficient vehicles and reporting sustainability progress to external stakeholders. NCI-designated cancer centers were further along in implementing these programs (p-value = <0.05). In comparing the self-identified NCI-designated cancer centers to centers that indicated they were both and NCI and PGH, the later had made greater progress in using their collective buying power to pursue sustainable purchasing practices within the medical community (p-value = <0.05). In both study groups, recycling programs were well developed.^ Conclusions. Employee involvement was viewed as the most important reason for both study groups to pursue recycling initiatives and incorporated environmental criteria into purchasing decisions. A written sustainability commitment did not readily translate into a high percentage that had developed a sustainability master plan. Coordination of sustainability programs through a designated sustainability professional was not being undertaken by a large number of institutions within each study group. This may be due to the current economic downturn or management's attention to the emerging health care legislation being debated in congress. ^ Lifecycle assessments, an element of a carbon footprint, are seen as emerging areas of opportunity for health care institutions that can be used to evaluate the total lifecycle costs of products and services.^

Perceptions of chief executives of Texas Catholic health care institutions regarding the poor and the provision of Catholic health care

Perceptions of chief executive officers (CEOs) of Texas Catholic health care institutions regarding the poor and the provision of Catholic health care were the focus for this study. A total of 40 health care administrators were asked to participate in a survey. Thirty-seven CEOs responded, including seven religious superiors, six health system CEOs and 24 hospital CEOs. Survey items concerning Catholic health for the poor centered on obligations and responsibilities of Catholic hospitals, means of achieving those obligations, and assessment of whether hospitals' objectives were being met. In addition, respondents' attitudes and beliefs about poor people in general were examined. Independent variables were CEO type, gender, religious preference, member of a religious order, and educational preparation. For purposes of analysis, most survey items were classified by level of consensus exhibited by respondents. The respondents to this survey agreed on most issues concerning poor people and the provision of Catholic health care. However, there were areas of disagreement particularly in Part I of the survey which dealt with responsibility/obligation, means/methods, and assessment of health care delivery for the poor. ^