Implementation of a "No Fly" safety culture in a multicenter radiation medicine department

Treatment Terminations During Radiation Therapy: A 10-Year Experience

PURPOSE

Patients undergoing radiation therapy may terminate treatment for any number of reasons. The incidence of treatment termination (TT) during radiation therapy has not been studied. Herein, we present a cohort of TT at a large multicenter radiation oncology department over 10 years.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

TTs between January 2013 and January 2023 were prospectively analyzed as part of an ongoing departmental quality and safety program. TT was defined as any premature discontinuation of therapy after initiating radiation planning. The rate of TT was calculated as a percentage of all patients starting radiation planning. All cases were presented at monthly morbidity and mortality conferences with a root cause reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 1448 TTs were identified out of 31,199 planned courses of care (4.6%). Six hundred eighty-six (47.4%) involved patients treated with curative intent, whereas 753 (52.0%) were treated with palliative intent, and 9 (0.6%) were treated for benign disease. The rate of TT decreased from 8.49% in 2013 to 3.02% in 2022, with rates decreasing yearly. The most common disease sites for TT were central nervous system (21.7%), head and neck (19.3%), thorax (17.5%), and bone (14.2%). The most common causes of TT were hospice and/or patient expiration (35.9%), patient choice unrelated to toxicity (35.2%), and clinician choice unrelated to toxicity (11.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

This 10-year prospective review of TTs identified a year-over-year decrease in TTs as a percentage of planned patients. This decrease may be associated with the addition of root cause reviews for TTs and discussions monthly at morbidity and mortality rounds, coupled with departmental upstream quality initiatives implemented over time. Understanding the reasons behind TTs may help decrease preventable TTs. Although some TTs may be unavoidable, open discourse and quality improvement changes effectively reduce TT incidents over time.

Assessing initial plan check efficacy using TG 275 failure modes and incident reporting

Plan checks are important components of a robust quality assurance (QA) program. Recently, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) published two reports concerning plan and chart checking, Task Group (TG) 275 and Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) 11.A. The purpose of the current study was to crosswalk initial plan check failure modes revealed in TG 275 against our institutional QA program and local incident reporting data. Ten physicists reviewed 46 high‐risk failure modes reported in Table S1.A.i of the TG 275 report. The committee identified steps in our planning process which sufficiently checked each failure mode. Failure modes that were not covered were noted for follow‐up. A multidisciplinary committee reviewed the narratives of 1599 locally‐reported incidents in our Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (ROILS) database and categorized each into the high‐risk TG 275 failure modes. We found that over half of the 46 high‐risk failure modes, six of which were top‐ten failure modes, were covered in part by daily contouring peer‐review rounds, upstream of the traditional initial plan check. Five failure modes were not adequately covered, three of which concerned pregnancy, pacemakers, and prior dose. Of the 1599 incidents analyzed, 710 were germane to the initial plan check, 23.4% of which concerned missing pregnancy attestations. Most, however, were caught prior to CT simulation (98.8%). Physics review and initial plan check were the least efficacious checks, with error detection rates of 31.8% and 31.3%, respectively, for some failure modes. Our QA process that includes daily contouring rounds resulted in increased upstream error detection. This work has led to several initiatives in the department, including increased automation and enhancement of several policies and procedures. With TG 275 and MPPG 11.A as a guide, we strongly recommend that departments consider an internal chart checking policy and procedure review.

Post Traumatic Growth in Radiation Medicine following the COVID-19 Outbreak

Purpose

It has been reported that adversarial growth during traumatic events potentially enhances coping with sequelae. The purpose of this work was to assess posttraumatic growth (PTG) among radiation medicine staff members at the individual level as well as changes in perceptions of departmental culture after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods and Materials

An anonymous PTG inventory (PTGI) survey comprising 21 indicators was disseminated to all 213 members of our multicenter radiation department to measure perceptions of change in personal, interpersonal-relationship, and philosophy of life factors using principal-factor analysis. Additionally, 8 department safety-culture indicators from the National Hospital Patient Safety Culture Survey developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality were included to assess changes in department safety-culture perceptions verses a prepandemic survey. The survey was repeated 15 months later to assess longitudinal trends.

Results

With a 56.3% survey-response rate, PTGI factor analysis yielded Cronbach's alpha values exceeding 0.90 for the 3 aforementioned PTG factors. The average growth per indicator was 2.3 (out of 5.0), which fell between small and moderate. The values were 2.4 (personal), 2.1 (interpersonal), and 1.6 (philosophy) for the 3 factors. The total PTGI score (47.7 ± 28.3 out of 105 points) was lower for masked, patient-facing, frontline workers members (41.8 ± 28.4) compared with others (53.1 ± 27.3, P value .001). For the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality survey there was an improvement of 15% in perceptions of department safety culture, and 7 of the 8 indicators showed improvements compared with baseline. The follow-up survey demonstrated overall sustained findings, albeit with a trend toward declining PTG scores for nonfrontline workers, notably in interpersonal relationships (47.4 ± 27.0, P value .05).

Conclusions

A fair-to-moderate degree of PTG was observed in personal and interpersonal relationship factors whereas least growth was noted in spiritual and religious beliefs. Perceptions of department patient-safety culture improved substantially. Sustained improvements were thus perceived at the individual and department levels.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic Surge on Radiation Treatment: Report From a Multicenter New York Area Institution

PURPOSE

During the COVID-19 surge months of March and April 2020, our New York multicenter health system experienced an influx of cases with COVID-19. We sought to study the impact of the surge period on patients with cancer prescribed radiation treatment (RT).

METHODS

We reviewed our secure departmental quality assurance database for all patients who underwent RT planning simulations from March 6, 2020, through April 30, 2020. A priority level between 1 and 3 was prospectively assigned to each case based on faculty consensus to determine which patients required immediate RT. In May 2020, each faculty physician again retrospectively reviewed their patients from the database and provided additional commentary on how the COVID-19 pandemic had affected each patient's care. All statistics are descriptive.

RESULTS

A total of 412 RT courses in 406 unique patients were simulated for linear accelerator-based external beam RT. The median age was 66 years. Treatment intent was curative in 70.6% and palliative in 29.4%. Of the 412 cases, 66.7% were priority 1, 25% priority 2, and 7.8% priority 3. Two hundred thirty-nine cases (58%) underwent standard-of-care diagnosis, workup, and treatment plan. Seventeen patients (4.1%) electively canceled their RT, and 17 others (4.1%) electively delayed RT start. Thirty-four (8.3%) were prescribed hypofractionation to shorten their RT course, and 22 (5.3%) had a change in modality. Incomplete or delayed workup was identified in 19 cases (4.6%).

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic surge resulted in 42% of our patients having a non-standard-of-care pathway. This outcome demonstrates a significant impact of the COVID-19 crisis on routine cancer care.

Development and execution of a pandemic preparedness plan: Therapeutic medical physics and radiation dosimetry during the COVID-19 crisis

The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic has spread around the world including the United States. New York State has been hardest hit by the virus with over 380 000 citizens with confirmed COVID-19, the illness associated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. At our institution, the medical physics and dosimetry group developed a pandemic preparedness plan to ensure continued operation of our service. Actions taken included launching remote access to clinical systems for all dosimetrists and physicists, establishing lines of communication among staff members, and altering coverage schedules to limit on-site presence and decrease risk of infection. The preparedness plan was activated March 23, 2020, and data were collected on treatment planning and chart checking efficiency for 6 weeks. External beam patient load decreased by 25% during the COVID-19 crisis, and special procedures were almost entirely eliminated excepting urgent stereotactic radiosurgery or brachytherapy. Efficiency of treatment planning and chart checking was slightly better than a comparable 6-week interval in 2019. This is most likely due to decreased patient load: Fewer plans to generate and more physicists available for checking without special procedure coverage. Physicists and dosimetrists completed a survey about their experience during the crisis and responded positively about the preparedness plan and their altered work arrangements, though technical problems and connectivity issues made the transition to remote work difficult. Overall, the medical physics and dosimetry group successfully maintained high-quality, efficient care while minimizing risk to the staff by minimizing on-site presence. Currently, the number of COVID-19 cases in our area is decreasing, but the preparedness plan has demonstrated efficacy, and we will be ready to activate the plan should COVID-19 return or an unknown virus manifest in the future.

Guidelines to Reduce Hospitalization Rates for Patients Receiving Curative-Intent Radiation Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report From a Multicenter New York Area Institution

As the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic spreads around the globe, access to radiation therapy remains critical for patients with cancer. The priority for all radiation oncology departments is to protect the staff and to maintain operations in providing access to those patients requiring radiation therapy services. Patients with tumors of the aerodigestive tract and pelvis, among others, often experience toxicity during treatment, and there is a baseline risk that adverse effects may require hospital-based management. Routine care during weekly visits is important to guide patients through treatment and to mitigate against the need for hospitalization. Nevertheless, hospitalizations occur and there is a risk of nosocomial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 spread. During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, typical resources used to help manage patients, such as dental services, interventional radiology, rehabilitation, and others are limited or not at all available. Recognizing the need to provide access to treatment and the anticipated toxicity of such treatment, we have developed and implemented guidelines for clinical care management with the hope of avoiding added risk to our patients. If successful, these concepts may be integrated into our care directives in nonpandemic times.

COMP Report: A survey of radiation safety regulations for medical imaging x-ray equipment in Canada

X-ray regulations and room design methodology vary widely across Canada. The Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists (COMP) conducted a survey in 2016/2017 to provide a useful snapshot of existing variations in rules and methodologies for human patient medical imaging facilities. Some jurisdictions no longer have radiation safety regulatory requirements and COMP is concerned that lack of regulatory oversight might erode safe practices. Harmonized standards will facilitate oversight that will ensure continued attention is given to public safety and to control workplace exposure. COMP encourages all Canadian jurisdictions to adopt the dose limits and constraints outlined in Health Canada Safety Code 35 with the codicil that the design standards be updated to those outlined in NCRP 147 and BIR 2012.

Impact of Multi-Institutional Prospective Peer Review on Target and Organ-at-Risk Delineation in Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

Peer review is an essential component of quality assurance programs in radiation oncology. The purpose of this work was to assess whether peer reviewers recommend expansion or reduction of planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) in prospective multidisciplinary daily contour rounds.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The peer group evaluated the appropriateness of PTVs and OARs for each case according to evidence-based departmental directives. We reviewed 7645 cases that presented between September 2013 and March 2017. We isolated recommendations for PTV/OAR modification and classified each as expansion, reduction, both, or indeterminate. Recommendations were analyzed by technique, site, and physician experience.

RESULTS

Eight junior and 7 senior radiation oncologists were included. PTV or OAR modifications were recommended for 750 of 7645 prescriptions (9.7%). The peer group recommended PTV modifications for 534 prescriptions (7.0%): There were 309 expansions (57.9%), 115 reductions (21.5%), 15 both (2.8%), and 95 indeterminate (17.8%). Reasons for PTV expansions included increased nodal coverage and inadequate margins as a result of motion. The peer group recommended OAR modifications for 216 prescriptions (2.8%): There were 102 expansions (47.2%), 23 reductions (10.6%), 2 both (0.9%), and 89 indeterminate (41.2%). Reasons for OAR expansions included missing critical structures and inadequate extent as per departmental standardization. Head and neck represented the largest percentage of PTV recommendations (28.8%). Intensity modulated radiation therapy plans received the most PTV and OAR recommendations (66.8% and 74.5%, respectively). The recommendation rate for senior and junior faculty was 43% and 28%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer review resulted in recommendations for PTV or OAR change for approximately 10% of cases. Expansions of PTV were recommended >2.5 times more often than reductions and >3 times more often than OAR expansions. This general trend was identified for treatment technique, site, and physician experience. Prospective peer review could yield systematically larger volumes, which could affect multicenter clinical trials.

Application of an incident taxonomy for radiation therapy: Analysis of five years of data from three integrated cancer centres

AIM

To develop and apply a clinical incident taxonomy for radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND

Capturing clinical incident information that focuses on near-miss events is critical for achieving higher levels of safety and reliability.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A clinical incident taxonomy for radiation therapy was established; coding categories were prescription, consent, simulation, voluming, dosimetry, treatment, bolus, shielding, imaging, quality assurance and coordination of care. The taxonomy was applied to all clinical incidents occurring at three integrated cancer centres for the years 2011-2015. Incidents were managed locally, audited and feedback disseminated to all centres.

RESULTS

Across the five years the total incident rate (per 100 courses) was 8.54; the radiotherapy-specific coded rate was 6.71. The rate of true adverse events (unintended treatment and potential patient harm) was 1.06. Adverse events, where no harm was identified, occurred at a rate of 2.76 per 100 courses. Despite workload increases, overall and actual rates both exhibited downward trends over the 5-year period. The taxonomy captured previously unidentified quality assurance failures; centre-specific issues that contributed to variations in incident trends were also identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of a taxonomy developed for radiation therapy enhances incident investigation and facilitates strategic interventions. The practice appears to be effective in our institution and contributes to the safety culture. The ratio of near miss to actual incidents could serve as a possible measure of incident reporting culture and could be incorporated into large scale incident reporting systems.

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.

Practical implementation of quality improvement for high-dose-rate brachytherapy

PURPOSE

High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy is a high-risk procedure with serious errors reported in the medical literature. Our goal was to develop a quality improvement framework for HDR brachytherapy using a multidisciplinary approach. This work describes the time, personnel, and materials involved in implementation as well as staff-reported safety benefits of quality improvement checklists.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Quality improvement was achieved using a department-wide multidisciplinary approach. Process mapping of the entire HDR program, from initial scheduling through follow-up, was performed. The scope of the project was narrowed to the point of treatment delivery. Two types of multidisciplinary checklists were created: a safety-timeout checklist to ensure safety-critical actions were performed before treatment initiation; and detailed procedure checklists that served as written procedures for physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, and nurses. Implementation was carried out through initial training led by various staff members, creation of visual training guides, piloting and use of checklists for all treatments, and auditing of checklist compliance.

RESULTS

Process maps of the entire HDR program were generated and used to guide subsequent changes in the treatment delivery process. A single safety-timeout checklist and the individual procedure checklists were created and used at the time of treatment delivery. The 3-month audit showed that the safety-timeout checklist was used for 100% of treatment fractions. Individual procedure checklists were used for 85% of fractions. All cross-covering physicians and physicists continued to use these checklists 100% of the time. Staff survey results indicated improvements in safety and increased benefits for cross-covering staff.

CONCLUSIONS

In using a multidisciplinary approach to quality improvement, process mapping and comprehensive checklists for HDR treatment delivery have been implemented. This has resulted in improved practices that are optimal in our department. This experience can provide others with practical strategies toward implementing such changes in their own facilities.

Incident Learning and Failure-Mode-and-Effects-Analysis Guided Safety Initiatives in Radiation Medicine

By combining incident learning and process failure-mode-and-effects-analysis (FMEA) in a structure-process-outcome framework we have created a risk profile for our radiation medicine practice and implemented evidence-based risk-mitigation initiatives focused on patient safety. Based on reactive reviews of incidents reported in our departmental incident-reporting system and proactive FMEA, high safety-risk procedures in our paperless radiation medicine process and latent risk factors were identified. Six initiatives aimed at the mitigation of associated severity, likelihood-of-occurrence, and detectability risks were implemented. These were the standardization of care pathways and toxicity grading, pre-treatment-planning peer review, a policy to thwart delay-rushed processes, an electronic whiteboard to enhance coordination, and the use of six sigma metrics to monitor operational efficiencies. The effectiveness of these initiatives over a 3-years period was assessed using process and outcome specific metrics within the framework of the department structure. There has been a 47% increase in incident-reporting, with no increase in adverse events. Care pathways have been used with greater than 97% clinical compliance rate. The implementation of peer review prior to treatment-planning and use of the whiteboard have provided opportunities for proactive detection and correction of errors. There has been a twofold drop in the occurrence of high-risk procedural delays. Patient treatment start delays are routinely enforced on cases that would have historically been rushed. Z-scores for high-risk procedures have steadily improved from 1.78 to 2.35. The initiatives resulted in sustained reductions of failure-mode risks as measured by a set of evidence-based metrics over a 3-years period. These augment or incorporate many of the published recommendations for patient safety in radiation medicine by translating them to clinical practice.

Development, implementation, and compliance of treatment pathways in radiation medicine

INTRODUCTION

While much emphasis on safety in the radiation oncology clinic is placed on process, there remains considerable opportunity to increase safety, enhance outcomes, and avoid ad hoc care by instituting detailed treatment pathways. The purpose of this study was to review the process of developing evidence and consensus-based, outcomes-oriented treatment pathways that standardize treatment and patient management in a large multi-center radiation oncology practice. Further, we reviewed our compliance in incorporating these directives into our day-to-day clinical practice.

METHODS

Using the Institute of Medicine guideline for developing treatment pathways, 87 disease specific pathways were developed and incorporated into the electronic medical system in our multi-facility radiation oncology department. Compliance in incorporating treatment pathways was assessed by mining our electronic medical records (EMR) data from January 1, 2010 through February 2012 for patients with breast and prostate cancer.

RESULTS

This retrospective analysis of data from EMR found overall compliance to breast and prostate cancer treatment pathways to be 97 and 99%, respectively. The reason for non-compliance proved to be either a failure to complete the prescribed care based on grade II or III toxicity (n = 1 breast, 3 prostate) or patient elected discontinuance of care (n = 1 prostate) or the physician chose a higher dose for positive/close margins (n = 3 breast).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that consensus and evidence-based treatment pathways can be developed and implemented in a multi-center department of radiation oncology. And that for prostate and breast cancer there was a high degree of compliance using these directives. The development and implementation of these pathways serve as a key component of our safety program, most notably in our effort to facilitate consistent decision-making and reducing variation between physicians.