EVALUATION OF SAFETY IN A RADIATION ONCOLOGY SETTING USING FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS

被引:178
作者
Ford, Eric C. [1 ]
Gaudette, Ray [1 ]
Myers, Lee [1 ]
Vanderver, Bruce [2 ]
Engineer, Lilly [2 ]
Zellars, Richard [1 ]
Song, Danny Y. [1 ]
Wong, John [1 ]
DeWeese, Theodore L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ, Dept Radiat Oncol & Mol Radiat Sci, Baltimore, MD 21231 USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Univ, Ctr Innovat Qual Patient Care, Baltimore, MD 21231 USA
来源
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS | 2009年 / 74卷 / 03期
关键词
Patient Safety; Quality Improvement; Quality Assurance; PATIENT SAFETY; TREATMENT DELIVERY; THERAPY; ERROR; RADIOTHERAPY; LESSONS; IMPACT; CARE;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.10.038
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is a widely used tool for prospectively evaluating safety and reliability. We report our experiences in applying FMEA in the setting of radiation oncology. Methods and Materials: We performed an FMEA analysis for our external beam radiation therapy service, which consisted of the following tasks: (1) create a visual map of the process, (2) identify possible failure modes; assign risk probability numbers (RPN) to each failure mode based on tabulated scores for the severity, frequency of occurrence, and detectability, each on a scale of 1 to 10; and (3) identify improvements that are both feasible and effective. The RPN scores can span a range of 1 to 1000, with higher scores indicating the relative importance of a given failure mode. Results: Our process map consisted of 269 different nodes. We identified 127 possible failure modes with RPN scores ranging from 2 to 160. Fifteen of the top-ranked failure modes were considered for process improvements, representing RPN scores of 75 and more. These specific improvement suggestions were incorporated into our practice with a review and implementation by each department team responsible for the process. Conclusions: The FMEA technique provides a systematic method for finding vulnerabilities in a process before they result in an error. The FMEA framework can naturally incorporate further quantification and monitoring. A general-use system for incident and near miss reporting would be useful in this regard. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:852 / 858
页数:7
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems [J].
Barach, P ;
Small, SD .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 320 (7237) :759-763
[2]   Detection of systematic errors in external radiotherapy before treatment delivery [J].
Calandrino, R ;
Cattaneo, GM ;
Fiorino, C ;
Longobardi, B ;
Mangili, P ;
Signorotto, P .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 1997, 45 (03) :271-274
[3]   Mistake-proofing in health care: Lessons for ongoing patient safety improvements [J].
Clancy, Carolyn M. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL QUALITY, 2007, 22 (06) :463-465
[4]   Failure mode and effects analysis application to critical care medicine [J].
Duwe, B ;
Fuchs, BD ;
Hansen-Flaschen, J .
CRITICAL CARE CLINICS, 2005, 21 (01) :21-+
[5]   The impact of treatment complexity and computer-control delivery technology on treatment delivery errors [J].
Fraass, BA ;
Lash, KL ;
Matrone, GM ;
Volkman, SK ;
McShan, DL ;
Kessler, ML ;
Lichter, AS .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1998, 42 (03) :651-659
[6]   Anaesthesiology as a model for patient safety in health care [J].
Gaba, DM .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 320 (7237) :785-788
[7]  
Grissinger Matthew, 2002, J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash), V42, pS54
[8]   Mistake proofing: changing designs to reduce error [J].
Grout, J. R. .
QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2006, 15 :I44-I49
[9]  
Grout John R, 2003, Jt Comm J Qual Saf, V29, P354
[10]   Error in the delivery of radiation therapy: Results of a quality assurance review [J].
Huang, G ;
Medlam, G ;
Lee, J ;
Billingsley, S ;
Bissonnette, JP ;
Ringash, J ;
Kane, G ;
Hodgson, DC .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2005, 61 (05) :1590-1595