International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Clinical InvestigationEvaluation of Safety in a Radiation Oncology Setting Using Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
Introduction
A safe and effective radiotherapy treatment necessarily consists of treating the correct tissue in the correct patient with the correct dose. This is to be accomplished in one of the most complex settings in healthcare—one that is steadily growing more complex. Reported error rates have ranged from 0.06% to 4.66%, depending on how errors are quantified 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Although most of these errors are minor and treatment can be adjusted to allow effective therapy, there is a strong incentive to reduce these rates even further, given the potentially catastrophic nature of an error.
The discipline of radiation oncology has many well-established methods in place to prevent errors or to mitigate their effects. Examples include independent checks of delivered dose via diodes on the patient's skin (6), weekly review of patient films and charts, and standard quality assurance measures designed to uncover more systematic errors (7). What is less well established in the field of radiation oncology is the view of systems-wide safety and the associated methods for systematic risk analysis and improvement.
Systematic risk analysis is a powerful tool that can help to identify vulnerabilities in a specific clinic and to suggest where resources might be concentrated for the most significant impact. Such methodologies are now in regular use in other healthcare disciplines: for example, to prevent chemotherapy errors (8), to improve performance in trauma (9), or to improve the design and use of equipment (10). The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has also called for regular prospective safety analyses (11).
Here we report our experience with one particular safety improvement methodology, failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). The FMEA technique is a well-established tool for safety analysis and improvement (12). It is widely used in manufacturing, where many vendors use it to fulfill the requirements for prospective risk analysis by the Food and Drug Administration (21 CFR 820) and the Internal Organization for Standardization 9000 standards. The FMEA technique is also beginning to be used in other disciplines in healthcare 8, 9, 10. The goal of this article is to present an overview of FMEA as specifically applied to a radiation oncology clinic. A similar report by American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 100 has appeared, which describes a basic outline of FMEA and two example applications in radiation oncology (13).
Section snippets
Methods and Materials
The initial analysis presented here was performed over a 3-month period, starting in January 2007. The steering committee consisted of 11 members, representing a cross-section of department staff including administrators, nurses, clinical research coordinators, radiation therapists, physicists, information technologists, resident physicians, and attending physicians. The committee was further assisted by staff from the Johns Hopkins Center for Innovation in Quality Patient Care.
A first step in
Results
Our process map consisted of 269 separate nodes, each indicating an action to be taken or information to be manipulated in some manner (Fig. 1). The map falls naturally into four categories: patient consult, simulation, treatment planning, and treatment. An example of one section of the map is shown in Fig. 2. Note that this section is part of a much larger map and represents approximately 10% of the total number of nodes. Nevertheless, even with such a large process map we emphasize that the
Discussion
A systematic consideration of factors related to reliability and safety can reduce error rates. This is germane to the generally recognized need to improve safety in healthcare (20). Anesthesiology is an often-cited success story in this regard. By actively using safety measures, mortality rates have been reduced by more than a factor of 20 in the last 25 years (21). A handful of studies have measured the error rates of delivering radiotherapy treatment fields 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. There is a wide
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the following individuals for their active participation in this failure mode and effects analysis process: Ruth Bell, R.T.T., Daryl Carson, B.S., Kelly Cavallio, J.D., Timothy Chan, M.D., Andrea Cox, R.N., Marsha Goldberg, R.T.T., Mary Ellen Holland-Callender, R.T.T., Richard McCarthy, B.S., and members of the Johns Hopkins Center for Innovation in Quality Patient Care.
References (29)
- et al.
Error in the delivery of radiation therapy: Results of a quality assurance review
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(2005) - et al.
The impact of treatment complexity and computer-control delivery technology on treatment delivery errors
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(1998) - et al.
Detection of systematic errors in external radiotherapy before treatment delivery
Radiother Oncol
(1997) - et al.
Detection of errors in individual patients in radiotherapy by systematic in vivo dosimetry
Radiother Oncol
(1995) - et al.
A method for evaluating quality assurance needs in radiation therapy
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(2008) Preventing medical errors by designing benign failures
J Comm Qual Saf
(2003)- et al.
Basics of quality improvement in health care
Mayo Clin Proc
(2007) - et al.
Toward learning from patient safety reporting systems
J Crit Care
(2006) - et al.
Learning from near misses in an effort to promote patient safety
AORN J
(2003) - et al.
Reporting near-miss events in nursing homes
Nurs Outlook
(2006)
The impact of advanced technologies on treatment deviations in radiation treatment delivery
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
Error rates in clinical radiotherapy
J Clin Oncol
Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: Report of AAPM radiation therapy committee task group 40
Med Phys
Failure mode and effect analysis: A technique to prevent chemotherapy errors
Clin J Oncol Nurs
Cited by (187)
Process failure mode and effects analysis for external beam radiotherapy: Introducing a literature-based template and a novel action priority
2024, Zeitschrift fur Medizinische PhysikUnified risk analysis in radiation therapy
2023, Zeitschrift fur Medizinische PhysikRisk assessment and improvement of biological and radiological safety in taking chest X-rays in patients with COVID-19
2023, Journal of Healthcare Quality ResearchFailure Mode and Effects Analysis for Experimental Use of FLASH on a Clinical Accelerator
2023, Practical Radiation OncologyDevelopment and clinical implementation of a digital system for risk assessments for radiation therapy
2023, Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Physik
Conflict of interest: none