Evaluation of failure modes and effect analysis for routine risk assessment of lung radiotherapy at a UK center

Improving the safety of radiotherapy treatment processes via incident-driven FMEA feedback loops

BACKGROUND

Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is a valuable tool for radiotherapy risk assessment, yet its outputs might be unreliable due to failures not being identified or due to a lack of accurate error rates.

PURPOSE

A novel incident reporting system (IRS) linked to an FMEA database was tested and evaluated. The study investigated whether the system was suitable for validating a previously performed analysis and whether it could provide accurate error rates to support the expert occurrence ratings of previously identified failure modes.

METHODS

Twenty-three pre-identified failure modes of our external beam radiotherapy process, covering the process steps from patient admission to treatment delivery, were proffered on dedicated FMEA feedback and incident reporting terminals generated by the IRS. The clinical setting involved a computed tomography scanner, dosimetry, and five linacs. Incoming reports were used as basis to identify additional failure modes or confirm initial ones. The Kruskal-Wallis H test was applied to compare the risk priorities of the retrospective and prospective failure modes. Wald's sequential probability ratio test was used to investigate the correctness of the experts' occurrence ratings by means of the number of incoming reports.

RESULTS

Over a 15-month period, 304 reports were submitted. There were 0.005 (confidence interval [CI], 0.0014-0.0082) reported incidents per imaging study and 0.0006 (CI, 0.0003-0.0009) reported incidents per treatment fraction. Sixteen additional failure modes could be identified, and their risk priorities did not differ from those of the initial failure modes (p = 0.954). One failure mode occurrence rating could be increased, whereas the other 22 occurrence ratings could not be disproved.

CONCLUSIONS

Our approach is suitable for validating FMEAs and deducing additional failure modes on a continual basis. Accurate error rates can only be provided if a sufficient number of reports is available.

Development and clinical implementation of a digital system for risk assessments for radiation therapy

Before introducing new treatment techniques, an investigation of hazards due to unintentional radiation exposures is a reasonable activity for proactively increasing patient safety. As dedicated software is scarce, we developed a tool for risk assessment to design a quality management program based on best practice methods, i.e., process mapping, failure modes and effects analysis and fault tree analysis. Implemented as a web database application, a single dataset was used to describe the treatment process and its failure modes. The design of the system and dataset allowed failure modes to be represented both visually as fault trees and in a tabular form. Following the commissioning of the software for our department, previously conducted risk assessments were migrated to the new system after being fully re-assessed which revealed a shift in risk priorities. Furthermore, a weighting factor was investigated to bring risk levels of the migrated assessments into perspective. The compensation did not affect high priorities but did re-prioritize in the midrange of the ranking. We conclude that the tool is suitable to conduct multiple risk assessments and concomitantly keep track of the overall quality management activities.

Process failure mode and effects analysis for external beam radiotherapy: Introducing a literature-based template and a novel action priority

PURPOSE

The first aim of the study was to create a general template for analyzing potential failures in external beam radiotherapy, EBRT, using the process failure mode and effects analysis (PFMEA). The second aim was to modify the action priority (AP), a novel prioritization method originally introduced by the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), to work with different severity, occurrence, and detection rating systems used in radiation oncology.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The AIAG PFMEA approach was employed in combination with an extensive literature survey to develop the EBRT-PFMEA template. Subsets of high-risk failure modes found through the literature survey were added to the template where applicable. Our modified AP for radiation oncology (RO AP) was defined using a weighted sum of severity, occurrence, and detectability. Then, Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to compare the original AIAG AP, the RO AP, and the risk priority number (RPN). The results of the simulations were used to determine the number of additional corrective actions per failure mode and to parametrize the RO AP to our department's rating system.

RESULTS

An EBRT-PFMEA template comprising 75 high-risk failure modes could be compiled. The AIAG AP required 1.7 additional corrective actions per failure mode, while the RO AP ranged from 1.3 to 3.5, and the RPN required 3.6. The RO AP could be parametrized so that it suited our rating system and evaluated severity, occurrence, and detection ratings equally to the AIAG AP.

CONCLUSIONS

An adjustable EBRT-PFMEA template is provided which can be used as a practical starting point for creating institution-specific templates. Moreover, the RO AP introduces transparent action levels that can be adapted to any rating system.

Multi-phase failure modes and effects analysis for low dose bilateral whole lung irradiation of COVID-19 positive patients requiring respiratory ventilation

PURPOSE

To identify high-priority risks in a clinical trial investigating the use of radiation to alleviate COVID-19 pneumonia using a multi-phase failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA).

METHODS

A comprehensive FMEA survey of 133 possible causes of failure was developed for the clinical trial workflow (Phase I). The occurrence, severity, and detection risk of each possible cause of failure was scored by three medical physicists. High-risk potential failure modes were identified using the risk priority number (RPN) and severity scores, which were re-scored by 13 participants in radiation oncology (Phase II). Phase II survey scores were evaluated to identify steps requiring possible intervention and examine risk perception patterns. The Phase II participants provided consensus scores as a group.

RESULTS

Thirty high-priority failure modes were selected for the Phase II survey. Strong internal consistency was shown in both surveys using Cronbach's alpha (αc ≥ 0.85). The 10 failures with the largest median RPN values concerned SARS-CoV-2 transmission (N = 6), wrong treatment (N = 3), and patient injury (N = 1). The median RPN was larger for COVID-related failures than other failure types, primarily due to the perceived difficulty of failure detection. Group re-scoring retained 8/10 of the highest-priority risk steps that were identified in the Phase II process, and discussion revealed interpretation differences of process steps and risk evaluation. Participants who were directly involved with the trial working group had stronger agreement on severity scores than those who were not.

CONCLUSIONS

The high ranking of failures concerning SARS-CoV-2 transmission suggest that these steps may require additional quality management intervention when treating critically ill COVID-19+ patients. The results also suggest that a multi-phase FMEA survey led by a facilitator may be a useful tool for assessing risks in radiation oncology procedures, supporting future efforts to adapt FMEA to clinical procedures.

Failure modes and effects analysis study for accelerator-based Boron Neutron Capture Therapy

BACKGROUND

Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT) has recently been used in clinical oncology thanks to recent developments of accelerator-based BNCT systems. Although there are some specific processes for BNCT, they have not yet been discussed in detail.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to provide comprehensive data on the risk of accelerator-based BNCT system to institutions planning to implement an accelerator-based BNCT system.

METHODS

In this study, failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) was performed based on a treatment process map prepared for the accelerator-based BNCT system. A multidisciplinary team consisting of a medical doctor (MD), a registered nurse (RN), two medical physicists (MP), and three radiologic technologists (RT) identified the failure modes (FMs). Occurrence (O), severity (S), and detectability (D) were scored on a scale of 10, respectively. For each failure mode (FM), risk priority number (RPN) was calculated by multiplying the values of O, S, and D, and it was then categorized as high risk, very high risk, and other. Additionally, FMs were statistically compared in terms of countermeasures, associated occupations, and whether or not they were the patient-derived.

RESULTS

The identified FMs for BNCT were 165 in which 30 and 17 FMs were classified as high risk and very high risk, respectively. Additionally, 71 FMs were accelerator-based BNCT-specific FMs in which 18 and 5 FMs were classified as high risk and very high risk, respectively. The FMs for which countermeasures were "Education" or "Confirmation" were statistically significantly higher for S than the others (p = 0.019). As the number of BNCT facilities is expected to increase, staff education is even more important. Comparing patient-derived and other FMs, O tended to be higher in patient-derived FMs. This could be because the non-patient-derived FMs included events that could be controlled by software, whereas the patient-derived FMs were impossible to prevent and might also depend on the patient's condition. Alternatively, there were non-patient-derived FMs with higher D, which were difficult to detect mechanically and were classified as more than high risk. In O, significantly higher values (p = 0.096) were found for FMs from MD and RN associated with much patient intervention compared to FMs from MP and RT less patient intervention. Comparing conventional radiotherapy and accelerator-based BNCT, although there were events with comparable risk in same FMs, there were also events with different risk in same FMs. They could be related to differences in the physical characteristics of the two modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first report for conducting a risk analysis for BNCT using FMEA. Thus, this study provides comprehensive data needed for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) in the treatment process for facilities considering the implementation of accelerator-based BNCT in the future. Because many BNCT-specific risks were discussed, it is important to understand the characteristics of BNCT and to take adequate measures in advance. If the effects of all FMs and countermeasures are discussed by multidisciplinary team, it will be possible to take countermeasures against individual FMs from many perspectives and provide BNCT more safely and effectively.

Failure modes in stereotactic radiosurgery. A narrative review

OBJECTIVES

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) refers to an advanced radiotherapy technique that requires a high level of precision and accuracy and a flawless workflow. Failures within the SRS process can lead to serious consequences due to high doses delivered per treatment. This narrative review aimed to identify the riskiest failure modes (FMs) and the stages at which they occur in the SRS process, as well as the strategies applied to mitigate the risks. It was based on the analysis of published failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) data.

KEY FINDINGS

From the literature search in PubMed and Scopus, 7 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the qualitative synthesis. In total, 9 radiotherapy departments conducted FMEA in the SRS process. 4 of them were community hospitals and 5 were academic centers. Overall, 54 high-risk FMs were identified with treatment planning (FMs: 18), treatment delivery (FMs: 12), consultation and patient registration (FMs: 10) being the riskiest stages. 10 FMs were stereotactic specific, while the remaining 44 could be met in any radiotherapy technique. Failures associated with contouring, medical records review, target reirradiation, and patient positioning were mostly outlined. Risk mitigation strategies included timeouts, double-checks, checklists, training and changes in the working practice.

CONCLUSION

Our review demonstrated that crucial FMs can occur in all SRS stages. Although generalisations were challenging, the FMs analysis provided a significant source of information about potential high risks and continuous improvement strategies that can be applied both in the SRS and other radiotherapy processes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results of this research will assist radiotherapy facilities in proactive risk management studies and will allow radiotherapy professionals to reflect on their practice and learn from others' experiences.