J Radiat Res. 2022 Jan 20;63(1):128-136. doi: 10.1093/jrr/rrab079.
Since there are no corresponding specification limits for some new daily quality assurance (QA) items in the TG-142, it is a compromise that the specification limits used in the monthly or annual QA procedures are used for the daily QA procedure in work. But there is no basis for whether this is feasible. The purpose of this article is to analyze QA results using SPC to determine the tolerance limits at our institution, and to present the usefulness of the analysis method using SPC. The data of three groups daily QA processes performed with Daily QA3 in three years were analyzed using statistical process control (SPC). For calculating capability indices (Cp, Cpk, Cpm and Cpmk) of processes, the appropriate number of calculation points was analyzed firstly. Then, in calculating the capability indices for output, limits ±3% of the daily QA in the TG-142 were used as the specification limit, while for flatness and symmetry, an annual QA limits of ±1% was used. For putting forward measures to solve the problem, customized tolerance and action limits were established for each process. And the process control charts calculated using data measured by the five therapists and a medical physicist were compared. At least six to eight weeks of control daily check data points (i.e. 30-40 points) should be used for calculating the individuals and moving range (I-MR) control chart to ensure the stability of control lines. Process capability indices of output were all ≥1, some were up to 3-4. While for symmetry, some processes failed to meet the requirements that capability indices were < 1. For different processes of the same daily QA items, the calculated customized limits were quite different. The range of upper control line (UCL) and lower control line (LCL) was smaller for output and the CL was closer to the target value of 0 for flatness and symmetry in the I-MR control chart calculated using data measured by one staff. For different quality control processes without management by the SPC method at our institution, calculated tolerance and action limits of the same measurement item were quite different. And in most measurement items, the specification limits used in the monthly or annual QA procedures in the TG-142 are not suitable to the daily QA procedure. So the analysis method using SPC is useful and necessary.
由于 TG-142 中一些新的日常质量保证 (QA) 项目没有相应的规范限值,因此在工作中使用月度或年度 QA 程序的规范限值来进行日常 QA 程序是一种妥协。但这是否可行没有依据。本文的目的是使用统计过程控制 (SPC) 分析 QA 结果,确定本机构的公差限值,并介绍使用 SPC 进行分析的方法。使用统计过程控制 (SPC) 分析了三年内使用 Daily QA3 进行的三组每日 QA 过程的数据。为了计算过程的能力指数 (Cp、Cpk、Cpm 和 Cpmk),首先分析了适当的计算点数。然后,在计算输出的能力指数时,将 TG-142 中每日 QA 的±3%作为规范限值,而对于平整度和对称性,则使用年度 QA 的±1%作为规范限值。为了解决问题提出措施,为每个过程建立了定制的公差和行动限值。并比较了使用五名治疗师和一名医学物理学家测量的数据计算出的过程控制图。为了确保控制线的稳定性,应使用至少六到八周的控制每日检查数据点(即 30-40 点)来计算个体和移动范围 (I-MR) 控制图。输出的过程能力指数均≥1,有些高达 3-4。而对于对称性,一些过程未能满足能力指数 <1 的要求。对于同一每日 QA 项目的不同过程,计算出的定制限值差异很大。对于由一名工作人员测量的数据计算出的 I-MR 控制图,输出的上限控制限 (UCL) 和下限控制限 (LCL) 范围较小,且 CL 更接近 0 的目标值,平整度和对称性的范围较小。对于本机构没有通过 SPC 方法管理的不同质量控制过程,同一测量项目的计算公差和行动限值差异很大。并且在大多数测量项目中,TG-142 中月度或年度 QA 程序中使用的规范限值不适合每日 QA 程序。因此,使用 SPC 进行分析的方法是有用且必要的。