In recent years, the practice of radiation oncology has changed due to several technological advances. As such, there is growing interest in the evolving nature of safety and operational challenges faced by radiation oncology professionals. This research focuses on physicists who play an important role in the radiation therapy treatment planning and delivery process. Specifically, the purpose of our research is to assess their workload levels using the NASA TLX method in order to identify tasks that might compromise patient safety. Based on empirical observations, this study provides practical suggestions for lowering workload levels that ultimately can reduce the probability of errors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). (1993). The role of a Physicist in Radiation Oncology. College Park (MD): AAPM Report 38.
2.
BraunR. L. (2000). The effect of time pressure on auditor attention to qualitative aspects of misstatements indicative of potential fraudulent financial reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25(3), 243-259
3.
HartS.G.StavelandL.E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP.A.MeshkatiN., (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: North-Holland
4.
HurstKHurstL (1982). Pilot error: The human factors. New York: Aronson.
5.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2007). Specification and Acceptance Testing of Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Systems. (IAEA-TECDOC-1540). Vienna, Austria.
6.
KantowitzB. HSorkinR. D. (1983). Human factors: Understanding people-system relationship. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
7.
KelloggJ. S.HopkoD. R.AshcraftM. H. (1999). The effects of time pressure on arithmetic performance. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13(6), 591-600.
8.
KesslerM.L. (2006). Image registration and data fusion in radiation therapy. The British Journal of Radiology, 79, s99-s108.
9.
KnappB. G.HallB. J. (1990). Human Performance concerns for the TRACKWOLF. (ARI Research Note 91-14). Alexandria, VA.
10.
LeeK. K.KernsK.BonesR.NickelsonM. (2001). Development and Validation of the Controller Acceptance Rating Scale (CARS): Results of Empirical Research. 4th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar (ATM-2001), Santa Fe, NM,
11.
LeidenK.KellerJ.FrenchJ. (2001). Context of Human Error in Commercial Aviation. Report prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration System-Wide Accident Prevention Program, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA.
12.
LinD. M.SuY. (1998). The effect of time pressure on expert system based training for emergency management. Behaviour & Information Technology, 17(4), 195-202.
13.
McDanielL. S. (1990). The effects of time pressure and audit program structure on audit performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 28(2), 267-285.
14.
ParsuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI. (1993). Performance Consequences of Automation-Induced “Complacency”. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1-23
15.
WickensC.CarswellC. (1997). Information processing. In SalvendyG., (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (Second Edition). New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
16.
WienerE L. (1981). Complacency: Is the term useful for air safety?In Proceedings of the 26th Corporate Aviation Safety Seminar (pp. 116-125). Denver: Flight Safety Foundation, Inc.
17.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2008). World Health Organization. Radiotherapy risk profile: Technical manual. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO publishing; 2008.
18.
ZakayD. (1993). The impact of time perception processes on decision making under time stress. In MauleA. J.SvensonO., (Eds.), Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 59). New York: Plenum Press.
