A Safe and Practical Cycle for Team-Based Development and Implementation of In-House Clinical Software

Abstract

Due to a gap in published guidance, we describe our robust cycle of in-house clinical software development and implementation, which has been used for years to facilitate the safe treatment of all patients in our clinics. Methods and Materials: Our software development and implementation cycle requires clarity in communication, clearly defined roles, thorough commissioning, and regular feedback. Cycle phases include design requirements and use cases, development, physics evaluation testing, clinical evaluation testing, and full clinical release. Software requirements, release notes, test suites, and a commissioning report are created and independently reviewed before clinical use. Software deemed to be high-risk, such as those that are writable to a database, incorporate the use of a formal, team-based hazard analysis. Incident learning is used to both guide initial development and improvements as well as to monitor the safe use of the software. Results: Our standard process builds in transparency and establishes high expectations in the development and use of custom software to support patient care. Since moving to a commercial planning system platform in 2013, we have applied our team-based software release process to 16 programs related to scripting in the treatment planning system for the clinic. Conclusions: The principles and methodology described here can be implemented in a range of practice settings regardless of whether or not dedicated resources are available for software development. In addition to teamwork with defined roles, documentation, and use of incident learning, we strongly recommend having a written policy on the process, using phased testing, and incorporating independent oversight and approval before use for patient care. This rigorous process ensures continuous monitoring for and mitigatation of any high risk hazards.

Toward quantitative intrafractional monitoring in paraspinal SBRT using a proprietary software application: clinical implementation and patient results

“…To the best of our knowledge, our software is one of the few clinical applications, if not the first one, in North America that provides quantitative motion monitoring for paraspinal SBRT based on the TrueBeam TM platform. The software has been developed and tested against a variety of patients and spine regions based on a well-established testing cycle for in-house clinical software (Moran et al 2022). It has been proven accurate and stable for routine clinical use.…”

Survey in radiation oncology departments in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: state of digitalization by 2023

“…However, these scripts pose challenges due to their bespoke nature, including the potential for failure and the lack of standardized implementation processes. These factors could hinder their widespread adoption [ 7 , 8 ]. Furthermore, the relatively low percentage of institutions using in-house scripting might be attributable to a lack of coding skills in radiotherapy departments.…”

Automated VMAT treatment planning using sequential convex programming: algorithm development and clinical implementation

“…Given that there are always some discrepancies between the final dose calculated in Eclipse and the dose calculated in our optimization process (using the pre-computed influence matrix), we propose a correction step which essentially counter-balance these effects by incorporating them in optimization. To ensure the robustness and safety of our software development, we have followed the guidelines provided in Moran et al (2022) for final evaluation and documentation of our in-house software development. The contributions of this work can be summarized as follows:…”