Smith, Koren | Search NASA

DOE OSTI2016

Identifying Predictive Factors for Incident Reports in Patients Receiving Radiation Therapy

Purpose: To describe radiation therapy cases during which voluntary incident reporting occurred; and identify patient- or treatment-specific factors that place patients at higher risk for incidents. Methods and Materials: We used our institution's incident learning system to build a database of patients with incident reports filed between January 2011 and December 2013. Patient- and treatment-specific data were reviewed for all patients with reported incidents, which were classified by step in the process and root cause. A control group of patients without events was generated for comparison. Summary statistics, likelihood ratios, and mixed-effect logistic regression models were used for group comparisons. Results: The incident and control groups comprised 794 and 499 patients, respectively. Common root causes included documentation errors (26.5%), communication (22.5%), technical treatment planning (37.5%), and technical treatment delivery (13.5%). Incidents were more frequently reported in minors (age <18 years) than in adult patients (37.7% vs 0.4%, P<.001). Patients with head and neck (16% vs 8%, P<.001) and breast (20% vs 15%, P=.03) primaries more frequently had incidents, whereas brain (18% vs 24%, P=.008) primaries were less frequent. Larger tumors (17% vs 10% had T4 lesions, P=.02), and cases on protocol (9% vs 5%, P=.005) or with intensity modulated radiation therapy/image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (52% vs 43%, P=.001) were more likely to have incidents. Conclusions: We found several treatment- and patient-specific variables associated with incidents. These factors should be considered by treatment teams at the time of peer review to identify patients at higher risk. Larger datasets are required to recommend changes in care process standards, to minimize safety risks.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2014

A streamlined failure mode and effects analysis

Purpose: Explore the feasibility and impact of a streamlined failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) using a structured process that is designed to minimize staff effort. Methods: FMEA for the external beam process was conducted at an affiliate radiation oncology center that treats approximately 60 patients per day. A structured FMEA process was developed which included clearly defined roles and goals for each phase. A core group of seven people was identified and a facilitator was chosen to lead the effort. Failure modes were identified and scored according to the FMEA formalism. A risk priority number,RPN, was calculated and used to rank failure modes. Failure modes with RPN > 150 received safety improvement interventions. Staff effort was carefully tracked throughout the project. Results: Fifty-two failure modes were identified, 22 collected during meetings, and 30 from take-home worksheets. The four top-ranked failure modes were: delay in film check, missing pacemaker protocol/consent, critical structures not contoured, and pregnant patient simulated without the team's knowledge of the pregnancy. These four failure modes hadRPN > 150 and received safety interventions. The FMEA was completed in one month in four 1-h meetings. A total of 55 staff hours were required and, additionally, 20 h by the facilitator. Conclusions: Streamlined FMEA provides a means of accomplishing a relatively large-scale analysis with modest effort. One potential value of FMEA is that it potentially provides a means of measuring the impact of quality improvement efforts through a reduction in risk scores. Future study of this possibility is needed.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗