S2851
RTT - RTT education, training, and advanced practice
ESTRO 2026
Purpose/Objective: The Evaluative Commissioning in Protons (ECIP) programme is a national NHS England initiativeestablishedto assess new indications for PBT whereRCTs are not feasible. RTTs are integral to the coordination and delivery of these complex studies, extending their contribution beyond traditional treatment delivery. This evaluation examines RTT workload associated with ECIP study activities and highlights the evolving scope of RTT-led research delivery. Material/Methods: A prospective time audit was undertaken at one of the two PBT centres, to quantify RTT workload associated with ECIP study activities. RTTs recorded the duration of all study-related tasks per participant across screening, enrolment, follow-up stages. Tasks were grouped into predefined domains: patient-facing activities, data entry, documentation, regulatory, and coordination. Each record captured staff role, task type, visit type, and duration. Qualitative notes provided context for RTT specific requirements. Data was analysed descriptively to determine mean time per patient and task category, and to identify process bottlenecks and staffing requirements. Results: Three studies received researchethicsapproval between November 2024 and April 2025. The mean time from site set-up to opening was 278 days ( ≈ 9 months), with the first two studies opening in September and October 2025. Projected recruitment across these studies for a single centre is 115 patients over two years, with four recruited in the first month.A total of 33 discrete research tasks were identified per study, equating to 1,170 minutes (19.5 hours) of staff activity per patient. The mean task duration was 35 minutes (median 30). Most activity involved documentation (72%), followed by clinic interactions (13%), emails (8%), and meetings or calls (8%). Research RTTs undertook majority ofthe tasks (87%), with multidisciplinary input contributing to 25%, averaging 43 minutes per task.These findings show that administrative and documentation work dominates research workload, underscoring the need for dedicated RTT time and process streamlining to support efficient study delivery. Conclusion: RTTs play a key role in integrating research within the ECIP programme, contributing across screening, planning, and follow-up. The time audit indicated that each patient required ≈ 19.5 hours of study activity, with 72% spent on documentation and administrative tasks. This substantial hidden workload highlightsthe need for dedicated RTT capacity. By aligning study requirements with standard care, RTTs ensure protocol adherence, maintain patient safety, and
Potential hallucinations were mitigated through explicit behavioural instructions, such as: “Be conservative: if any part of the query is uncertain or not explicitly stated, do not infer or guess,” and “Only use information explicitly contained in the reference document.” The chatbot was also configured to prompt the user for more information when inputs were ambiguous. For queries outside its knowledge base, it explicitly acknowledged its limitations and declines to provide advice. Conclusion: We successfully developed dedicated chatbots that provide rapid, context-aware guidance for CT simulation and photon/proton radiotherapy workflows. By combining domain-specific prompt engineering with reference-based guardrails, we reduced hallucination risk and improved the reliability of LLM-generated responses. This approach demonstrates a feasible pathway for integrating AI- based clinical assistants into routine radiation therapy practice, supporting standardisation, training, and just-in-time information access. Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Chatbot, LLM Quantifying RTT workload in Proton Research: Insights from Evaluative Commissioning Studies. Riya Patel 1 , Amanda Webster 1 , Laura Allington 1 , Yen Ching Chang 1 , Sally Falk 2 , Faye Hellewell 2 , Syed Moinuddin 1 , Ed Smith 2 , Danielle Fairweather 1 1 University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. 2 The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom Proffered Paper 1369
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online