Elsevier

Radiotherapy and Oncology

Volume 97, Issue 3, December 2010, Pages 596-600
Radiotherapy and Oncology

Radiation safety
The use of human factors methods to identify and mitigate safety issues in radiation therapy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2010.09.026Get rights and content

Abstract

Background and purpose

New radiation therapy technologies can enhance the quality of treatment and reduce error. However, the treatment process has become more complex, and radiation dose is not always delivered as intended. Using human factors methods, a radiotherapy treatment delivery process was evaluated, and a redesign was undertaken to determine the effect on system safety.

Material and methods

An ethnographic field study and workflow analysis was conducted to identify human factors issues of the treatment delivery process. To address specific issues, components of the user interface were redesigned through a user-centered approach. Sixteen radiation therapy students were then used to experimentally evaluate the redesigned system through a usability test to determine the effectiveness in mitigating use errors.

Results

According to findings from the usability test, the redesigned system successfully reduced the error rates of two common errors (p < .04 and p < .01). It also improved the mean task completion time by 5.5% (p < .02) and achieved a higher level of user satisfaction.

Conclusions

These findings demonstrated the importance and benefits of applying human factors methods in the design of radiation therapy systems. Many other opportunities still exist to improve patient safety in this area using human factors methods.

Section snippets

Material and methods

This study was conducted at Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) in Ontario, Canada. PMH is staffed with approximately 150 radiation therapists and is equipped with 16 linear accelerators. This study focused on the Synergy® linear accelerator system manufactured by Elekta (Elekta Medical Systems, Crawley, UK). This system was controlled with the Desktop ProTM 7 control system, in conjunction with MOSAIQTM (IMPAC Medical Systems, Sunnyvale, CA), a R&V system.

To investigate potential issues with the

Results

Based on findings from the field observations and workflow analysis, the area that was found to be of particular concern was the checking process performed by radiation therapists prior to treatment delivery. At PMH, radiation therapists are required by policy to perform many checks to minimize the potential for use errors. These include checking the approval status of the treatment plan and the planning images, verifying the setup iso-center with the planning images, and verifying the linear

Discussion

Based on our findings from field observations and workflow analysis, the checking process during patient setup was found to be an area associated with many human factors issues. A number of studies from the literature have also shown that it is common behavior for health professionals to omit checks when not reinforced [33], [34]. This is particularly true when there are interruptions or distractions [35], [36]. Occasionally, radiation therapists would also omit some of the required checks,

Conflict of interest statement

There is no known conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Patient Safety Institute, the National Patient Safety Foundation, and The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The authors wish to thank Elekta for providing information on its products, as well as Catherine Dupuis from Princess Margaret Hospital and Varuna Prakash from the University of Toronto for their invaluable contributions to this study.

References (37)

  • A.J. Rivera et al.

    Human factors and systems engineering approach to patient safety for radiotherapy

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2008)
  • Bogdanich W. The radiation boom – radiation offers new cures, and ways to do harm. New York ed. The New York Times.2010...
  • Bogdanich W, Ruiz RR. F.D.A. to increase oversight of medical radiation. New York ed. The New York Times. 2010 Feb 10;...
  • Bogdanich W. F.D.A. toughens process for radiation equipment. New York ed. The New York Times. 2010 Apr 09; Sect. A:12....
  • T. Pawlicki et al.

    Quality in radiation oncology

    Med Phys

    (2007)
  • R.M. Macklis et al.

    Error rates in clinical radiotherapy

    J Clin Oncol

    (1998)
  • V.J. Gawron et al.

    Medical error and human factors engineering: Where are we now?

    Am J Med Qual

    (2006)
  • R.S. Bridger et al.

    Ergonomics: Introducing the human factor into the clinical setting

    J Clin Eng

    (1998)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text