RESUMEN
The purpose of this paper is to review the current and future employment plans of radiation therapists and administrators that employ them so that the supply and demand for these individuals is quantified. The survey was funded by the American Society of Radiologic Technologists and implemented by the Task Force on Human Resources. In April 1997 a questionnaire was mailed to a sample of radiation therapy administrators identified by the mailing list of the Society of Radiation Oncology Administrators (SROA). Another questionnaire was mailed to a sample of radiation therapists holding active certificates with the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists. Results of the survey indicated an increased demand for radiation therapists based on plans for facility expansion. Individuals anticipating retirement in the next five years ranged from 7% of the radiation therapists and 12% of the administrators surveyed. A model was developed which projected a shortfall of therapists ranging from 0% (-13 positions) in 1998 to 3% (-403 positions) projected for 2002. The paper concludes that the supply of radiation therapists did not meet the demand in the time period measured; 1998-2002. An increase in newly educated radiation therapists is needed to fill the openings created by those leaving the field. The survey should be repeated at successive intervals to accurately track and project both the supply of and the demand for radiation therapists.
Asunto(s)
Fuerza Laboral en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Oncología por Radiación , Tecnología Radiológica , Personal Administrativo , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Recolección de Datos , Demografía , Empleo/estadística & datos numéricos , Necesidades y Demandas de Servicios de Salud/tendencias , Humanos , Práctica Institucional/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To directly compare clinical efficacy of electronic to film portal images. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An observer study was designed to compare clinical efficacy of electronic to film portal images acquired using a liquid matrix ion-chamber electronic portal imaging device and a conventional metal screen/film system. Both images were acquired simultaneously for each treatment port and the electronic portal images were printed on gray-level thermal paper. Four radiation oncologists served as observers and evaluated a total of 44 sets of images for four different treatment sites: lung, pelvis, brain, and head/neck. Each set of images included a simulation image, a double-exposure portal film, and video paper prints of electronic portal images. Eight to nine anatomical landmarks were selected from each treatment site. Each observer was asked to rate each landmark in terms of its clinical visibility and to rate the ease of making the pertinent verification decision in the corresponding electronic and film portal images with the aid of the simulation image. RESULTS: Ratings for the visibility of landmarks and for the verification decision of treatment ports were similar for electronic and film images for most landmarks. However, vertebral bodies and several landmarks in the pelvis such as the acetabulum and public symphysis were more visible in the portal film images than in the electronic portal images. CONCLUSION: The visibility of landmarks in electronic portal images is comparable to that in film portal images. Verification of treatment ports based only on electronic portal images acquired using an electronic portal imaging device is generally achievable.