The challenge of maximizing safety in radiation oncology

[Events and errors in radiation oncology: Conciliating perspectives to support care]

The term "event" covers a wide range of concrete situations in radiation oncology, from particularly intense radiation-related side effects to the possibility of technical or human error. Although quality procedures are an integral part of radiotherapy oncology department operations ensuring the analysis and prevention of such events, their occurrence during radiation treatment still has a significant impact on patients and their experience of the treatment process, as well as on health professionals. These practical, emotional and symbolic impacts are all the greater when the event occurs in the aftermath of an error. The ethical approach therefore comprises three essential stages: recognizing the event as such, informing those involved of the event and, finally, creating conditions for the continuation of care. Each of these stages is marked by specific issues and questions, requiring a complex ethical approach that constantly involves reconciling the possible divergent perceptions of patients and health professionals. The occurrence of an event can also lead to a genuine crisis of confidence with multiple dimensions, which health professionals will also have to face and to support. Finally, the occurrence of an event calls into question not only our responsibility towards patients, but also our ideal of control. We need to criticize our culture of performance, rethink our approach to events and errors, and see them also as opportunities for positive change.

Technical Note: Improving the workflow in a carbon ion therapy center with custom software for enhanced patient care

Carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT) is an up-and-coming modality for cancer treatment. Implementation of CIRT requires collaboration among specialists like radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and other healthcare professionals. Effective communication among team members is necessary for the success of CIRT. However, the current workflows involving data management, treatment planning, scheduling, and quality assurance (QA) can be susceptible to errors, leading to delays and decreased efficiency. With the aim of addressing these challenges, a team of medical physicists developed an in-house workflow management software using FileMaker Pro. This tool has streamlined the workflow and improved the efficiency and quality of patient care.

Improving Quality Assurance in a Radiation Oncology Using ARIA Visual Care Path

PURPOSE

Errors and incidents may occur at any point within radiotherapy (RT). The aim of the present retrospective analysis is to evaluate the impact of a customized ARIA Visual Care Path (VCP) on quality assurance (QA) for the RT process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The ARIA VCP was implemented in June 2019. The following tasks were customized and independently verified (by independent checks from radiation oncologists, medical physics, and radiation therapists): simulation, treatment planning, treatment start verification, and treatment completion. A retrospective analysis of 105 random and unselected patients was performed, and 945 tasks were reviewed. Patients' reports were categorized based on treatment years period: 2019-2020 (A); 2021 (B); and 2022-2023 (C). The QA metrics included data for timeliness of task completion and data for minor and major incidents. The major incidents were defined as incorrect prescriptions of RT dose, the use of different immobilization systems during RT compared to the simulation, the absence of surface-guided RT data for patients' positioning, incorrect dosimetric QA for treatment plans, and failure to complete RT as originally planned. A sample size of approximately 100 was able to obtain an upper limit of 95% confidence interval below 5-10% in the case of zero or one major incident.

RESULTS

From June 2019 to December 2023, 5300 patients were treated in our RT department, an average of 1300 patients per year. For the purpose of this analysis, one hundred and five patients were chosen for the study and were subsequently evaluated. All RT staff achieved a 100% compliance rate in the ARIA VCP timely completion. A total of 36 patients were treated in Period A, 34 in Period B, and 35 in Period C. No major incidents were identified, demonstrating a major incident rate of 0.0% (95% CI 0.0-3.5%). A total of 26 out of 945 analyzed tasks (3.8%) were reported as minor incidents: absence of positioning photo in 32 cases, lack of patients' photo, and absence of plan documents in 4 cases. When comparing periods, incidents were statistically less frequent in Period C.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the present analysis has some limitations, its outcomes demonstrated that software for the RT workflow, which is fully integrated with both the record-and-verify and treatment planning systems, can effectively manage the patient's care path. Implementing the ARIA VCP improved the efficiency of the RT care path workflow, reducing the risk of major and minor incidents.

Multi-Institutional Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Incident Learning: Evaluation of Safety Barriers Using a Human Factors Analysis and Classification System

OBJECTIVES

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) can improve therapeutic ratios and patient convenience, but delivering higher doses per fraction increases the potential for patient harm. Incident learning systems (ILSs) are being increasingly adopted in radiation oncology to analyze reported events. This study used an ILS coupled with a Human Factor Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) and barriers management to investigate the origin and detection of SBRT events and to elucidate how safeguards can fail allowing errors to propagate through the treatment process.

METHODS

Reported SBRT events were reviewed using an in-house ILS at 4 institutions over 2014-2019. Each institution used a customized care path describing their SBRT processes, including designated safeguards to prevent error propagation. Incidents were assigned a severity score based on the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group Report 275. An HFACS system analyzed failing safeguards.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty events were analyzed with 106 near misses (66.2%) and 54 incidents (33.8%). Fifty incidents were designated as low severity, with 4 considered medium severity. Incidents most often originated in the treatment planning stage (38.1%) and were caught during the pretreatment review and verification stage (37.5%) and treatment delivery stage (31.2%). An HFACS revealed that safeguard failures were attributed to human error (95.2%), routine violation (4.2%), and exceptional violation (0.5%) and driven by personnel factors 32.1% of the time, and operator condition also 32.1% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving communication and documentation, reducing time pressures, distractions, and high workload should guide proposed improvements to safeguards in radiation oncology.

Application report of automatic unlocking baseplate in radiotherapy

Purpose

To reduce the potential risk during radiotherapy treatment of patients with head and neck tumors, we improved upon the design of an existing immobilization device by adding a feature to improve patient safety during emergency releases, and we verified its clinical application.

Method

We designed an improved automatic unlocking baseplate (AUB), and conducted a dosimetry comparison with Solo Align Full Body System (SAFBS, Klarity, China). The dosimetry comparison included dose‐attenuation measurements and results from human simulation. We selected four points for measurement to allow comparison between the SAFBS and our AUB. A simulated human body model was used for CT scanning, whereby the target area and structure and simulated radiotherapy plan were conducted according to the American Academy of Pain Medicine Task Group–119 report (TG‐119), whereby the dose differences were compared. The purpose of the clinical test was to verify the reliability of the AUB system in practical clinical applications. The application tests were conducted in CT simulation (CT‐sim) and treatment rooms. The test included assessments of the stability of the system and the reliability of our device.

Results

The dose‐attenuation measurements of the two baseplates were as follows: The transmission values with our unlocking system were 0.10% higher at the first point and 0.67% lower at the third. The same dose was obtained at points 2 and 4. In the simulation study, the PTV of the AUB was lower than that of the SAFBS, including 0.39% lower D₉₉ and 0.18% lower D₉₀. Among the organ‐at‐risk doses, the average dose of the AUB in the spinal cord was 0.6% higher than that of the SAFBS, and the average dose in the left and right parotid glands was more than 1.4% lower than that of SAFBS. The clinical test results were applied in treatment room and a CT‐sim room, which show a 100% success rate after being unlocked more than 5000 times.

Conclusion

The AUB designed for head and neck patients had good functional versatility, the dose distribution met the requirements, and the automatic unlocking function was demonstrated to be stable and reliable.

The impact of COVID-19 workflow changes on radiation oncology incident reporting

Background

The Ottawa Hospital's Radiation Oncology program maintains the Incident Learning System (ILS)—a quality assurance program that consists of report submissions of errors and near misses arising from all major domains of radiation. In March 2020, the department adopted workflow changes to optimize patient and provider safety during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Purpose

In this study, we analyzed the number and type of ILS submissions pre‐ and postpandemic precautions to assess the impact of COVID‐19‐related workflow changes.

Methods

ILS data was collected over six one‐year time periods between March 2016 and March 2021. For all time periods, the number of ILS submissions were counted. Each ILS submission was analyzed for the specific treatment domain from which it arose and its root cause, explaining the impetus for the error or near miss.

Results

Since the onset of COVID‐19‐related workflow changes, the total number of ILS submissions have reduced by approximately 25%. Similarly, there were 30% fewer ILS submissions per number of treatment courses compared to prepandemic data. There was also an increase in the proportion of “treatment planning” ILS submissions and a 50% reduction in the proportion of “decision to treat” ILS submissions compared to previous years. Root cause analysis revealed there were more incidents attributable to “poor, incomplete, or unclear documentation” during the pandemic year.

Conclusions

COVID‐19 workflow changes were associated with fewer ILS submissions, but a relative increase in submissions stemming from poor documentation and communication. It is imperative to analyze ILS submission data, particularly in a changing work environment, as it highlights the potential and realized mistakes that impact patient and staff safety.

Why quality assurance is necessary in gynecologic radiation oncology

Quality assurance (QA) in radiation oncology involves all checks and processes that ensure that radiotherapy is delivered in an optimal and intended manner. QA is essential for the accurate delivery of brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy in patients diagnosed with gynecologic malignancies. Inadequate QA can adversely impact clinical outcomes and reduce the reliability of clinical trials. This review highlights the importance of QA in gynecologic radiation oncology and explores the pertinent issues related to its implementation.

A Safe and Practical Cycle for Team-Based Development and Implementation of In-House Clinical Software

Purpose

Due to a gap in published guidance, we describe our robust cycle of in-house clinical software development and implementation, which has been used for years to facilitate the safe treatment of all patients in our clinics.

Methods and Materials

Our software development and implementation cycle requires clarity in communication, clearly defined roles, thorough commissioning, and regular feedback. Cycle phases include design requirements and use cases, development, physics evaluation testing, clinical evaluation testing, and full clinical release. Software requirements, release notes, test suites, and a commissioning report are created and independently reviewed before clinical use. Software deemed to be high-risk, such as those that are writable to a database, incorporate the use of a formal, team-based hazard analysis. Incident learning is used to both guide initial development and improvements as well as to monitor the safe use of the software.

Results

Our standard process builds in transparency and establishes high expectations in the development and use of custom software to support patient care. Since moving to a commercial planning system platform in 2013, we have applied our team-based software release process to 16 programs related to scripting in the treatment planning system for the clinic.

Conclusions

The principles and methodology described here can be implemented in a range of practice settings regardless of whether or not dedicated resources are available for software development. In addition to teamwork with defined roles, documentation, and use of incident learning, we strongly recommend having a written policy on the process, using phased testing, and incorporating independent oversight and approval before use for patient care. This rigorous process ensures continuous monitoring for and mitigatation of any high risk hazards.

Automated Plan Checking Software Demonstrates Continuous and Sustained Improvements in Safety and Quality: A 3-year Longitudinal Analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to perform a longitudinal analysis of the performance of our automated plan checking software by retrospectively evaluating the number of errors identified in plans delivered to patients in 3, month-long, data collection periods between 2017 and 2020.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eleven automated checks were retrospectively run on 1169 external beam radiation therapy treatment plans identified as meeting the following criteria: planning target volume-based multifield photon plans receiving a status of treatment approved in March 2017, March 2018, or March 2020. The number of passes (true positives) and flags were recorded. Flags were subcategorized into false negatives, false negatives due to naming conventions, and true negatives. In addition, 2 × 2 contingency tables using a 2-tailed Fisher's exact test were used to determine whether there were nonrandom associations between the output of the automated plan checking software and whether the check was manual or automated at the original time of treatment approval.

RESULTS

A statistically significant decrease in flags between the pre- and postautomation data sets was observed for 4 contour-based checks, namely adjacent structures overlap, empty structures and missing slices, overlap between body and couch, and laterality, as well as a check that determined whether the plan's global maximum dose was within the planning target volume. A review of the origins of false negatives was fed back into the design of the checks to improve the reliability of the system and help avoid warning fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

Periodic and longitudinal review of the performance of automated software was essential for monitoring and understanding its impact on error rates, as well as for optimization of the tool to adapt to regular changes of clinical practice. The automated plan checking software has demonstrated continuous contributions to the safe and effective delivery of external beam radiation therapy to our patient population, an impact that extends beyond its initial implementation and deployment.

Impact of Simulation-Based Training on Radiation Therapists' Workload, Situation Awareness, and Performance

Purpose

This study aimed to assess the impact of simulation-based training intervention on radiation therapy therapist (RTT) mental workload, situation awareness, and performance during routine quality assurance (QA) and treatment delivery tasks.

Methods and Materials

As part of a prospective institutional review board-approved study, 32 RTTs completed routine QA and treatment delivery tasks on clinical scenarios in a simulation laboratory. Participants, randomized to receive (n = 16) versus not receive (n = 16) simulation-based training had pre- and postintervention assessments of mental workload, situation awareness, and performance. We used linear regression models to compare the postassessment scores between the study groups while controlling for baseline scores. Mental workload was quantified subjectively using the NASA Task Load Index. Situation awareness was quantified subjectively using the situation awareness rating technique and objectively using the situation awareness global assessment technique. Performance was quantified based on procedural compliance (adherence to preset/standard QA timeout tasks) and error detection (detection and correction of embedded treatment planning errors).

Results

Simulation-based training intervention was associated with significant improvements in overall performance (P < .01), but had no significant impact on mental workload or subjective/objective quantifications of situation awareness.

Conclusions

Simulation-based training might be an effective tool to improve RTT performance of QA-related tasks.

Common Error Pathways in CyberKnife™ Radiation Therapy

Purpose/Objectives: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) may be considered “high risk” due to the high doses per fraction. We analyzed CyberKnife™ (CK) SRS and SBRT-related incidents that were prospectively reported to our in-house incident learning system (ILS) in order to identify severity, contributing factors, and common error pathways.

Material and Methods: From 2012 to 2019, 221 reported incidents related to the 4,569 CK fractions delivered (5.8%) were prospectively analyzed by our multi-professional Quality and Safety Committee with regard to severity, contributing factors, as well as the location where the incident occurred (tripped), where it was discovered (caught), and the safety barriers that were traversed (crossed) on the CK process map. Based on the particular step in the process map that incidents tripped, we categorized incidents into general error pathways.

Results: There were 205 severity grade 1–2 (did not reach patient or no clinical impact), 11 grade 3 (clinical impact unlikely), 5 grade 4 (altered the intended treatment), and 0 grade 5–6 (life-threatening or death) incidents, with human performance being the most common contributing factor (79% of incidents). Incidents most commonly tripped near the time when the practitioner requested CK simulation (e.g., pre-CK simulation fiducial marker placement) and most commonly caught during the physics pre-treatment checklist. The four general error pathways included pre-authorization, billing, and scheduling issues (n= 119); plan quality (n= 30); administration of IV contrast during simulation or pre-medications during treatment (n= 22); and image guidance (n= 12).

Conclusion: Most CK incidents led to little or no patient harm and most were related to billing and scheduling issues. Suboptimal human performance appeared to be the most common contributing factor to CK incidents. Additional study is warranted to develop and share best practices to reduce incidents to further improve patient safety.

The Fusion of Incident Learning and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for Data-Driven Patient Safety Improvements

PURPOSE

Incident learning is a critical part of the quality improvement process for all radiation therapy clinics. Failure mode and effects analysis has also been adopted as a hazard analysis method within the field of radiation oncology based on the recommendations of American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 100. In this work, we demonstrate a fusion of these techniques that is efficient and transferrable to all types of clinics and that allows data-driven targeting of the highest risk error types.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Four clinical physicists recorded safety events detected during physics treatment plan quality assurance over a 27-month period. Events were sorted into the broad categories of either a documentation or plan construction error. Events were further stratified into subcategories until sufficiently discriminated against for analysis. Event risks were quantified using reduced-resolution TG-100 severity scores combined with observed occurrence rates. The highest risk categories were examined for intervention strategies.

RESULTS

A total of 871 events were identified over the study period. Of these, 652 (74.9%) were classified as low severity, 178 (20.4%) as medium severity, and 41 (4.7%) as high severity. Four of the top 5 ranked categories could be targeted by a preplanning chart rounds. Several of the categories could be targeted by additional automation in the planning and QA processes.

CONCLUSIONS

The retrospective classification and risk analysis of safety events allows clinics to design targeted workflow and quality assurance changes aimed at reducing the occurrence of high-risk events. The method presented here leverages incident learning efforts that many clinics are already performing, allows the severity of events to be efficiently assigned, and generates actionable results without requiring a complete failure mode and effects analysis.

A Qualitative Analysis of Human Error During the DIBH Procedure

INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance study analyzed human errors that occurred during the radiation treatment delivery of the deep-inspiration breath hold (DIBH) technique at a tertiary cancer centre. The intention is to recommend solutions and system changes that have the potential to decrease the frequency of errors based on human factors principles.

METHODS

Eighty-two incident reports from January 2012 to July 2017 were retrieved and analysed to determine theme bins of performance-influencing factors contributing to the error. Performance-influencing factors were generated from the incident reports and from focus group discussions with volunteer radiation therapists in the department. Potential solutions to mitigate the error were sought from incident reports, focus groups, literature search, and an interview with a human factors specialist. The solutions were ranked based on the hierarchy of effectiveness, and recommendations were classified using a priority matrix.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine percent of the errors captured in the incident reports were defined as a slip or lapse error type, and 11% of the remaining errors were defined as a mistake error type. Treatment-related problem solving and distractions/interruptions were the highest frequency causative factors that contributed to the observed error. Potential solutions that were suggested across sources included implementing a forcing function, such as the real-time position management system, adding reminders, such as a console sign-off, and updating the current task checklist.

DISCUSSION

The potential solutions generated were summarized into four recommendations that have varying degrees of association with known causative factors. The four recommendations include investing in (1) a forcing function, (2) updating/reinforcing the procedure, (3) managing workload, and (4) updating the checklist. A priority matrix was used to assess both potential effectiveness and cost/effort of each recommendation. Ideally, recommendation 1 would be implemented; however, it is understood that there would be an associated cost. It is therefore suggested that recommendations 2, 3, and 4 are implemented together to increase the effectiveness of the intervention until recommendation 1 can be achieved.

CONCLUSION

This qualitative study introduced a method that analyzed human factors in a specialized procedure used in the treatment of a specific population of patients with cancer. Recommendations were formulated and proposed to the radiation therapy department in hopes of potentially decreasing the frequency of this specific error in the future.

Human Error Bowtie Analysis to Enhance Patient Safety in Radiation Oncology

PURPOSE

Ensuring safety within RT is of paramount importance. To further support and augment patient safety efforts, the purpose of this research was to test and refine a robust methodology for analyzing human errors that defeat individual controls within RT quality assurance (QA) programs.

METHODS

The method proposed for performing Bowtie Analysis (BTA) was based on training and recommendations from practitioners in the field of Human Factors and Ergonomics practice. Multidisciplinary meetings to iteratively develop BTA focused on incorrect site setup instructions was conducted.

RESULTS

From November 2015 to February 2017, we had 12 reported incidents related to site setup notes that could have led to site setup errors. Based on this data, we conducted five BTA analyses related to incorrect site setup instructions. None of the individual controls within our QA program designed to check for potential errors with site setup instructions met the level of robustness to be classified as key safeguards or barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

The relatively low number of incidents causing patient harm has led us to typically assume that we have sufficient and effective controls in place to prevent serious human errors from leading to severe patient consequences. Based on our BTA, we question how well we truly understand the details of our individual controls. To meet the level of safety achieved by high reliability organizations (HROs), we need to better ensure that our controls are as reliable and robust as we assume.

Staffing Levels and Workload for Radiation Therapists in Canada

PURPOSE

The safe delivery of radiation therapy is dependent in part on the provision and organization of oncology professionals. General recommendations for staffing of radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and radiation therapists have been published, but most of these provide little detail, especially in the case of radiation therapists (RTs). In Canada, there are no guidelines or national standards for the staffing of RTs, and there is a paucity of Canadian data on the existing staffing levels of RTs and the models used to establish these levels. This project sought to identify and compare the staffing models used for Canadian RTs, and the staffing levels and workload resulting from these models.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In January 2016, a survey was sent to managers of the 46 radiation treatment centres in Canada. This survey sought information on a range of staffing and practice variables for the fiscal year 2014/2015. Respondents were requested to provide the staffing model used for RTs at each centre and enough additional information to calculate the staffing levels and workload resulting from their staffing model. The survey included further variables that had the potential to influence staffing levels and workload, and centres were compared to establish if these variables did indeed impact staffing.

RESULTS

Of the 46 centres contacted, 37 centres responded, representing an 80.4% response rate. Survey results showed there are a variety of ways used to determine staffing across the country. Twenty of the 37 responding centres include some type of workload measurement in their staffing model, whereas 17 centres base staffing solely on historic levels or operating funds. There is a great deal of variation in the staffing levels and workload of RTs in Canada, with staff at some centres planning and treating twice the number of patients as RTs at other centres. Radiation therapist staffing levels at most radiation treatment centres in Canada are below the level recommended in recent publications. Differences in staffing levels or workload could not be accounted for by treatment complexity, number of specialty programs, use of relief staff, or number of RTs working in specialty nontreatment roles.

CONCLUSIONS

A high degree of variability in staffing levels and workload exists for RTs in Canada, which is not explained by differences in patterns of practice. It is likely that workload for RTs exceed safe levels at some Canadian centres. It is recommended that treatment centres use an up-to-date staffing model for RTs and continue to review staffing levels at regular intervals.

Accurate real time localization tracking in a clinical environment using Bluetooth Low Energy and deep learning

Deep learning has started to revolutionize several different industries, and the applications of these methods in medicine are now becoming more commonplace. This study focuses on investigating the feasibility of tracking patients and clinical staff wearing Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) tags in a radiation oncology clinic using artificial neural networks (ANNs) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs). The performance of these networks was compared to relative received signal strength indicator (RSSI) thresholding and triangulation. By utilizing temporal information, a combined CNN+ANN network was capable of correctly identifying the location of the BLE tag with an accuracy of 99.9%. It outperformed a CNN model (accuracy = 94%), a thresholding model employing majority voting (accuracy = 95%), and a triangulation classifier utilizing majority voting (accuracy = 95%). Future studies will seek to deploy this affordable real time location system in hospitals to improve clinical workflow, efficiency, and patient safety.

Consensus Recommendations for Developing IQ Script Enabled Radiation Oncology Care Plans in the MOSAIQ Oncology Information System

BACKGROUND

IQ script enabled radiation oncology (RO) Care Plans are a unique functionality of the MOSAIQ oncology information system and enables standardization of clinical workflow via predefined order sets, strategic launching of assessment forms, and automated forwarding of clinical tasks. However, the development of RO Care Plans is center-specific and must be adapted to each center's clinical workflow. To our knowledge, little to no guidelines exist for RO Care Plan implementation. This article is a collaborative article from 5 different centers of varying sizes and adoption stage that provides consensus strategies for RO Care Plan development.

METHODS

In 2016, 5 different centers of varying sizes and adoption stages met to develop strategies for RO Care Plan development. Before the meeting, an initial draft was circulated to all participating centers for feedback and incorporated into a refined document. The refined recommendations underwent a formal, 3-stage consensus process mediated by a radiation therapist to arrive at the final document.

RESULTS

Overall, 17 recommendations were provided that focused on 7 areas of Care Plan development: (1) predevelopment planning, (2) current-state RO workflow evaluation, (3) future-state RO integration planning, (4) Care Plan authoring, (5) pre-implementation, (6) implementation, and (7) post-implementation evaluation and review.

CONCLUSIONS

Care Plan development is a center-specific process, and the resulting recommendations provide a blueprint for a broad range of cancer centers for implementing Care Plans, or similar oncology information system modules, into their clinical processes.

Promoting safety mindfulness: Recommendations for the design and use of simulation-based training in radiation therapy

There is a need to better prepare radiation therapy (RT) providers to safely operate within the health information technology (IT) sociotechnical system. Simulation-based training has been preemptively used to yield meaningful improvements during providers' interactions with health IT, including RT settings. Therefore, on the basis of the available literature and our experience, we propose principles for the effective design and use of simulated scenarios and describe a conceptual framework for a debriefing approach to foster successful training that is focused on safety mindfulness during RT professionals' interactions with health IT.

Identifying Factors and Root Causes Associated With Near-Miss or Safety Incidents in Patients Treated With Radiotherapy: A Case-Control Analysis

Purpose:

To identify factors associated with a near-miss or safety incident (NMSI) in patients undergoing radiotherapy and identify common root causes of NMSIs and their relationship with incident severity.

Methods:

We retrospectively studied NMSIs filed between October 2014 and April 2016. We extracted patient-, treatment-, and disease-specific data from patients with an NMSI (n = 200; incident group) and a similar group of control patients (n = 200) matched in time, without an NMSI. A root cause and incident severity were determined for each NMSI. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to determine which specific factors were contributing to NMSIs. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine root causes of NMSIs and their relationship with incident severity.

Results:

NMSIs were associated with the following factors: head and neck sites (odds ratio [OR], 5.2; P = .01), image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (OR, 3; P = .009), daily imaging (OR, 7; P < .001), and tumors staged as T2 (OR, 3.3; P = .004). Documentation and scheduling errors were the most common root causes (29%). Communication errors were more likely to affect patients ( P < .001), and technical treatment delivery errors were most associated with a higher severity score ( P = .005).

Conclusion:

Several treatment- and disease-specific factors were found to be associated with an NMSI. Overall, our results suggest that complexity (eg, head and neck, image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and daily imaging) might be a contributing factor for an NMSI. This promotes an idea of developing a more dedicated and robust quality assurance system for complex cases and highlights the importance of a strong reporting system to support a safety culture.

Improving efficiency and safety in external beam radiation therapy treatment delivery using a Kaizen approach

INTRODUCTION

Modern external beam radiation therapy treatment delivery processes potentially increase the number of tasks to be performed by therapists and thus opportunities for errors, yet the need to treat a large number of patients daily requires a balanced allocation of time per treatment slot. The goal of this work was to streamline the underlying workflow in such time-interval constrained processes to enhance both execution efficiency and active safety surveillance using a Kaizen approach.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A Kaizen project was initiated by mapping the workflow within each treatment slot for 3 Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators. More than 90 steps were identified, and average execution times for each were measured. The time-consuming steps were stratified into a 2 × 2 matrix arranged by potential workflow improvement versus the level of corrective effort required. A work plan was created to launch initiatives with high potential for workflow improvement but modest effort to implement. Time spent on safety surveillance and average durations of treatment slots were used to assess corresponding workflow improvements.

RESULTS

Three initiatives were implemented to mitigate unnecessary therapist motion, overprocessing of data, and wait time for data transfer defects, respectively. A fourth initiative was implemented to make the division of labor by treating therapists as well as peer review more explicit. The average duration of treatment slots reduced by 6.7% in the 9 months following implementation of the initiatives (P = .001). A reduction of 21% in duration of treatment slots was observed on 1 of the machines (P < .001). Time spent on safety reviews remained the same (20% of the allocated interval), but the peer review component increased.

CONCLUSIONS

The Kaizen approach has the potential to improve operational efficiency and safety with quick turnaround in radiation therapy practice by addressing non-value-adding steps characteristic of individual department workflows. Higher effort opportunities are identified to guide continual downstream quality improvements.

Improving radiation oncology providers' workload and performance: Can simulation-based training help?

PURPOSE

To help with ongoing safety challenges in radiation therapy (RT), the objective of this research was to develop and assess the impact of a simulation-based training intervention on radiation oncology providers' workload and performance during treatment planning and quality assurance (QA) tasks.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eighteen radiation oncology professionals completed routine treatment planning and QA tasks on 2 clinical scenarios in a simulation laboratory as part of a prospective institutional review board-approved study. Workload was measured at the end of each assessment/scenario using the NASA Task-Load Index. Performance was quantified based on procedural compliance (adherence to preset/standard QA tasks), time-to-scenario completion, and clinically relevant performance. Participants were then randomized to receive (vs not receive) simulation-based training intervention (eg, standardized feedback on workload and performance) and underwent repeat measurements of workload and performance. Pre- and postintervention changes in workload and performance from participants who received (vs did not receive) were compared using 2-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Simulation-based training was associated with significant improvements in procedural compliance (P = .01) and increases in time-to-scenario completion (P < .01) but had no significant impact on subjective workload or clinically relevant performance.

CONCLUSION

Simulation-based training may be a tool to improve procedural compliance of RT professionals and to acquire new skills and knowledge to proactively maintain RT professionals' preoccupation with patient safety.

Improving patient safety and workflow efficiency with standardized pretreatment radiation therapist chart reviews

PURPOSE

Radiation therapists play a critical role in ensuring patient safety; however, they are sometimes given insufficient time to perform quality assurance (QA) of a patient's treatment chart and documentation before the start of treatment. In this work, we show the benefits of introducing a formal therapist prestart QA checklist, completed in a quiet space well in advance of treatment, into our workflow.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A therapist prestart QA checklist was created by analyzing in-house variance reports and treatment unit delays over 6 months. Therapists were then given dedicated time and workspace to perform their checks within the dosimetry office of our department. The effectiveness of the checklist was quantified by recording the percentage of charts that underwent QA before treatment, the percentage of charts with errors needing intervention, and treatment unit delays during a nearly 2-year period. The frequency and types of errors found by the prestart QA were also recorded.

RESULTS

Through the use of therapist prestart QA, instances of treatment unit delays were reduced by up to a factor of 9 during the first year of the program. At the outset of this new initiative, nearly 40% of charts had errors requiring intervention, with the majority being scheduling related. With upstream workflow changes and automation, this was reduced over the period of a year to about 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of treatment unit delays was dramatically reduced by using a formal therapist prestart QA checklist completed well in advance of treatment. The data collected via the checklist continue to be used for further quality improvement efforts.

Data-driven management using quantitative metric and automatic auditing program (QMAP) improves consistency of radiation oncology processes

PURPOSE

Process consistency in planning and delivery of radiation therapy is essential to maintain patient safety and treatment quality and efficiency. Ensuring the timely completion of each critical clinical task is one aspect of process consistency. The purpose of this work is to report our experience in implementing a quantitative metric and automatic auditing program (QMAP) with a goal of improving the timely completion of critical clinical tasks.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Based on our clinical electronic medical records system, we developed a software program to automatically capture the completion timestamp of each critical clinical task while providing frequent alerts of potential delinquency. These alerts were directed to designated triage teams within a time window that would offer an opportunity to mitigate the potential for late completion. Since July 2011, 18 metrics were introduced in our clinical workflow. We compared the delinquency rates for 4 selected metrics before the implementation of the metric with the delinquency rate of 2016. One-tailed Student t test was used for statistical analysis RESULTS: With an average of 150 daily patients on treatment at our main campus, the late treatment plan completion rate and late weekly physics check were reduced from 18.2% and 8.9% in 2011 to 4.2% and 0.1% in 2016, respectively (P < .01). The late weekly on-treatment physician visit rate was reduced from 7.2% in 2012 to <1.6% in 2016. The yearly late cone beam computed tomography review rate was reduced from 1.6% in 2011 to <0.1% in 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

QMAP is effective in reducing late completions of critical tasks, which can positively impact treatment quality and patient safety by reducing the potential for errors resulting from distractions, interruptions, and rush in completion of critical tasks.

Departmental Workload and Physician Errors in Radiation Oncology

PURPOSE

The purpose of this work was to evaluate measures of increased departmental workload in relation to the occurrence of physician-related errors and incidents reaching the patient in radiation oncology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All data were collected for the year 2013. Errors were defined as forms received by our departmental process improvement team; of these forms, only those relating to physicians were included in the study. Incidents were defined as serious errors reaching the patient requiring appropriate action; these were reported through a separate system. Workload measures included patient volumes and physician schedules and were obtained through departmental records for daily and monthly data. Errors and incidents were analyzed for relation with measures of workload using logistic regression modeling.

RESULTS

Ten incidents occurred in the year. The number of patients treated per day was a significant factor relating to incidents (P < 0.003). However, the fraction of department physicians off-duty and the ratio of patients to physicians were not found to be significant factors relating to incidents. Ninety-one physician-related errors were identified, and the ratio of patients to physicians (rolling average) was a significant factor relating to errors (P < 0.03). The number of patients and the fraction of physicians off-duty were not significant factors relating to errors.A rapid increase in patient treatment visits may be another factor leading to errors and incidents. All incidents and 58% of errors occurred in months where there was an increase in the average number of fields treated per day from the previous month; 6 of the 10 incidents occurred in August, which had the highest average increase at 26%.

CONCLUSIONS

Increases in departmental workload, especially rapid changes, may lead to higher occurrence of errors and incidents in radiation oncology. When the department is busy, physician errors may be perpetuated owing to an overwhelmed departmental checks system, leading to incidents reaching the patient. Insights into workload and workflow will allow for the development of targeted approaches to preventing errors and incidents.

Right Care for the Right Patient Each and Every Time

Purpose

To implement a biometric patient identification system in the field of radiation oncology.

Materials and Methods

A biometric system using palm vein scanning technology has been implemented to ensure the delivery of treatment to the correct patient each and every time. By interfacing a palm vein biometrics system (PVBS) (PatientSecure®, Imprivata, Lexington, Massachusetts) with the radiation oncology patient management system (ROPMS) (ARIA®, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California) one can integrate patient check-in at the front desk and identify and open the correct treatment record of the patient at the point of care prior to the initiation of the radiation therapy treatment.

Results

The learning time for the use of the software and palm scanner was extremely short. The staff at the front desk and treatment machines learned the procedures to use, clean, and care for the device in one hour’s time. The first key to the success of the system is to have a policy and procedure in place; such a procedure was created and put in place in the department from the first day. The second key to the success is the actual hand placement on the scanner. Learning the proper placement and gently reminding patients from time to time was found to be efficient and to work well. 

Conclusion

The use of a biometric patient identification system employing palm vein technology allows one to ensure that the right care is delivered to the right patient each and every time. Documentation through the PVBS database now exists to show that this has taken place.

Implementing Radiation Oncology Care Plans as a foundation for process improvement

Background

At The Radiation Medicine Program described, the entire radiation therapy (RT) workflow was previously conducted through the use of two electronic programs. It duplicated workflow and created a situation where it was difficult to measure the RT process. Recent enhancements to the electronic medical record facilitated the consolidation of RT planning and treatment workflows into one electronic system.

Purpose

This report will describe the clinical implementation of electronic Radiation Oncology (RO) Care Plans at a Regional Cancer Centre, and how they can be applied as a foundation for RT process improvements.

Impact and outcome

A total of 51 Care Plans and 95 IQ Scripts were successfully implemented. The benefits of RO Care Plans include a more streamlined process, removed ambiguity, improved communication, standardised workflow and automation of tasks. In addition, multiple performance indicators can be obtained from the RO Care Plans, such as caseload reports, workflow reports and a ‘white board’.

Conclusion

The implementation of RO Care Plans serves as a foundation for data-driven process improvement at a local Regional Cancer Centre.

The Quest for Quality: Principles to Guide Medical Radiation Technology Practice

Quality is a ubiquitous term in medical radiation technology; technologists, programs, and organizations emphasize the importance of "quality care," yet the concept of what is encompassed by the term, how it is built and measured, and who is the judge of whether it has been achieved, are often left undefined. This article will present theoretical definitions of quality, considering the value of professional, patient, and organization perspectives. Foundational quality principles and frameworks will be explored to highlight tools necessary to engage in "quality-related" activities and research at the individual, institutional, and systems level. Being equipped with an understanding of the work of Deming, the underpinnings of the lean strategy and the idea of continuous quality improvement will support technologists in contributing to evidence-based, high-quality, and safe practice. Building on these basics, concepts of complexity and standardization will be explored as they relate to achieving and maintaining quality given changing practice, focusing on personalized medicine, technological innovation, and best practice guidelines. Means to measure and evaluate quality will be presented, emphasizing the need for a structured approach. Using the work of the Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy as an example, key quality-related considerations, such as incident reporting, organizational structure, and quality culture will be discussed, with specific attention to roles within the team. When appropriately defined, measured, and evaluated, the quest for quality has the potential to improve safety and mitigate risk. Engaging technologists to assume strong roles in providing the highest quality of care will contribute positively at the level of the individual patient, the organization, and the system.

Guidelines for treatment naming in radiation oncology

Safety concerns may arise from a lack of standardization and ambiguity during the treatment planning and delivery process in radiation therapy. A standardized target and organ-at-risk naming convention in radiation therapy was developed by a task force comprised of several Radiation Oncology Societies. We present a nested-survey approach in a community setting to determine the methodology for radiation oncology departments to standardize their practice. Our Institution's continuous quality improvement (CQI) committee recognized that, due to growth from one to three centers, significant variability existed within plan parameters specific to patients' treatment. A multidiscipline, multiclinical site consortium was established to create a guideline for standard naming. Input was gathered using anonymous, electronic surveys from physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, chief therapists, and nurse managers. Surveys consisted of several primary areas of interest: anatomical sites, course naming, treatment plan naming, and treatment field naming. Additional concepts included capitalization, specification of laterality, course naming in the event of multiple sites being treated within the same course of treatment, primary versus boost planning, the use of bolus, revisions for plans, image-guidance field naming, forbidden characters, and standard units for commonly used physical quantities in radiation oncology practice. Guidelines for standard treatment naming were developed that could be readily adopted. This multidisciplinary study provides a clear, straightforward, and easily implemented protocol for the radiotherapy treatment process. Standard nomenclature facilitates the safe means of communication between team members in radiation oncology. The guidelines presented in this work serve as a model for radiation oncology clinics to standardize their practices.

"Error Bars" in Medical Imaging: Stealth and Treacherous

Given the critical role that diagnostic radiology has in patient care, it is important for providers and patients to understand the level of certainty associated with imaging. Over-reliance on imaging and failure to appreciate its limitations can lead to unforeseen consequences. Further, there are uncertainties and inconsistencies in the manner in which imaging-based information is considered, communicated, and applied. There are opportunities to alter practice to maximize comprehension of radiologic reports and thus optimize the manner in which imaging-based information is applied clinically.

Analysis of an inter-centre, web-based radiation oncology peer-review case conference

Purpose

Peer-review programmes in radiation oncology are used to facilitate the process and evaluation of clinical decision-making. However, web-based peer-review methods are still uncommon. This study analysed an inter-centre, web-based peer-review case conference as a method of facilitating the decision-making process in radiation oncology.

Methodology

A benchmark form was designed based on the American Society for Radiation Oncology targets for radiation oncology peer review. This was used for evaluating the contents of the peer-review case presentations on 40 cases, selected from three participating radiation oncology centres. A scoring system was used for comparison of data, and a survey was conducted to analyse the experiences of radiation oncology professionals who attended the web-based peer-review meetings in order to identify priorities for improvement.

Results

The mean scores for the evaluations were 82·7, 84·5, 86·3 and 87·3% for cervical, prostate, breast and head and neck presentations, respectively. The survey showed that radiation oncology professionals were confident about the role of web-based peer-reviews in facilitating sharing of good practice, stimulating professionalism and promoting professional growth. The participants were satisfied with the quality of the audio and visual aspects of the web-based meeting.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that simple inter-centre web-based peer-review case conferences are a feasible technique for peer review in radiation oncology. Limitations such as data security and confidentiality can be overcome by the use of appropriate structure and technology. To drive the issues of quality and safety a step further, small radiotherapy departments may need to consider web-based peer-review case conference as part of their routine quality assurance practices.

A Culture of Safety? An International Comparison of Radiation Therapists' Error Reporting

BACKGROUND

The process of radiation therapy planning and delivery is increasing in complexity, and errors that occur can have serious repercussions for patients. Many radiation therapy departments use incident learning systems (ILSs) to report, analyze, and learn from errors. The success of an ILS relies on a nonpunitive workplace culture in which practitioners are comfortable reporting errors. This study examines the error reporting culture of radiation therapists and dosimetrists in Canada and the United States.

METHODS

A survey assessing perceptions regarding communication among staff, comfort in error reporting, and associated obstacles was mailed to a national sample of 1,500 radiation therapists and 528 dosimetrists in the United States. A similar survey was sent electronically to 1,500 Canadian radiation therapists, and the results from both surveys were compared and summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The quality of communication between radiation therapists and physicians, physicists, and administrators is good in both countries, but there are differences between the three groups, with administrators ranked lowest. There was better perceived communication between radiation therapists, physicians, and physicists in the US cohort. Both cohorts felt they had opportunities to speak to physicians, physicists, and administrators, but the US cohort felt they had better opportunities than the Canadians. Most respondents felt there was a system for reporting errors in their departments, but this was higher in the Canadian group (88% in the United States, 98% in Canada). The majority of respondents felt that they were encouraged and felt comfortable to report errors in the clinic, and this result was significantly higher in the Canadian group. The majority of respondents felt that they had not been reprimanded for reporting an error; more people reported knowing of other staff being reprimanded rather than themselves. The largest obstacles to error reporting in both cohorts were fear of reprimand, poor communication, and hierarchy.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of staff in both countries feel that communication in their department is good and that there are adequate systems for error reporting. However, a number of respondents felt that they, or a colleague, had been reprimanded in the past, and there are still perceived barriers to the use of an ILS. There is still work to do on improving positive perceptions of error reporting and departmental communication.

A real-time safety and quality reporting system: assessment of clinical data and staff participation

PURPOSE

To report on the use of an incident learning system in a radiation oncology clinic, along with a review of staff participation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

On September 24, 2010, our department initiated an online real-time voluntary reporting system for safety issues, called the Radiation Oncology Quality Reporting System (ROQRS). We reviewed these reports from the program's inception through January 18, 2013 (2 years, 3 months, 25 days) to assess error reports (defined as both near-misses and incidents of inaccurate treatment).

RESULTS

During the study interval, there were 60,168 fractions of external beam radiation therapy and 955 brachytherapy procedures. There were 298 entries in the ROQRS system, among which 108 errors were reported. There were 31 patients with near-misses reported and 27 patients with incidents of inaccurate treatment reported. These incidents of inaccurate treatment occurred in 68 total treatment fractions (0.11% of treatments delivered during the study interval). None of these incidents of inaccurate treatment resulted in deviation from the prescription by 5% or more. A solution to the errors was documented in ROQRS in 65% of the cases. Errors occurred as repeated errors in 22% of the cases. A disproportionate number of the incidents of inaccurate treatment were due to improper patient setup at the linear accelerator (P<.001). Physician participation in ROQRS was nonexistent initially, but improved after an education program.

CONCLUSIONS

Incident learning systems are a useful and practical means of improving safety and quality in patient care.

Radiation therapist peer review: raising the bar on quality and safety in radiation oncology

Purpose

An emerging developmental tool to help radiation therapists achieve better outcomes is ‘peer review’. This review of the current literature summarises the challenges and benefits of peer review in both individual and departmental practice.

Discussion

There is compelling evidence supporting peer review implementation at both individual and department level in many professions. Implementing peer review requires that radiation therapists and other radiation oncology professionals embrace a culture that supports safety. Peer review can identify trends and barriers associated with quality radiotherapy and share best practice or recommend changes accordingly. Support for peer review must come from pre-registration educational systems as well as clinical managers. Continuing professional development in the workplace is nurtured by peer review of radiotherapy practice and an aptitude for this should be viewed as important to the profession as technical and clinical skills.

Conclusion

It is clear that peer review has the potential to facilitate reflective practice, improve staff motivation and help foster a culture of quality and safety in radiation oncology. To drive the issues of quality and safety a step further radiation therapists need to accept the challenge of adopting peer review methods in day-to-day practice.