The Stucture of Korean Radiation Oncology in 1997.
- Author:
Mi Sook KIM
1
;
Seoung Yul YOO
;
Chul Koo CHO
;
Hyung Jun YOO
;
Kwang Mo YANG
;
Young Hoon JI
;
Do Jun KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Radiation Therapy;
Statistics;
PCS;
Quality assurance structure
- MeSH:
Consensus;
Developed Countries;
Humans;
Japan;
Korea;
Particle Accelerators;
Postal Service;
Radiation Oncology*
- From:The Journal of the Korean Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
1999;17(2):172-178
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To measure the basic structural characteristics of radiation oncology facilities in Korea during 1997 and to compare personnel, equipments and patient loads between Korea and developed countries. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Mail serveys were conducted in 1998 and data on treatment machines, personnel and performed new patients were collected. Responses were obtained from the 100 percent of facilities. The consensus data of the whole contry were summarized using Microsoft Excel program. RESULTS: In Korea during 1997, 42 facilities delivered megavoltage radiation theraphy with 71 treatment machines, 100 radiation oncologists, 26 medical physicist, 205 technologists and 19,773 new patients. Eighty nine percent of facilities in Korea had linear accelators at least 6 MeV maxium photon energy. Ninety five percent of facilities had simulators while five percent of facilities had no simulator. Ninety one percent of facilities had computer planning systems and eighty three percent of facilities reported that they had a written quality assurace program. Thirty six percent of facilities had only one radiation oncologist and thirty eight percent of facilities had no medical physicists. The median of the distribution of annual patients load of a facility, patients load per a machine, patients load per a radiation oncologist, patients load per a therapist and therapists per a machine in Korea were 348 patients per a year, 263 patients per a machine, 171 patients per a radiation oncologis, 81 patients per a therapist, and 3 therapists per a machine respectively. CONCLUSION: The whole scale of the radiation oncology departments in Korea was smaller than Japan and USA in population ratio regard. In case of hardware level like linear accelerators, simulators and computer planning systems, there was no big diffrences bewteen Korea and USA. The patients loads of radiation oncologists and therapists had no significient differences as compared with USA. However, it was desirable to consider the part time system in USA because there were a lot of hospitals which did not employ medical physicists.
