Patient safety in external beam radiotherapy, results of the ACCIRAD project: Current status of proactive risk assessment, reactive analysis of events, and reporting and learning systems in Europe

Risk management patterns in radiation oncology-results of a national survey within the framework of the Patient Safety in German Radiation Oncology (PaSaGeRO) project

PURPOSE

Risk management (RM) is a key component of patient safety in radiation oncology (RO). We investigated current approaches on RM in German RO within the framework of the Patient Safety in German Radiation Oncology (PaSaGeRO) project. Aim was not only to evaluate a status quo of RM purposes but furthermore to discover challenges for sustainable RM that should be addressed in future research and recommendations.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted from June to August 2021, consisting of 18 items on prospective and reactive RM, protagonists of RM, and self-assessment concerning RM. The survey was designed using LimeSurvey and invitations were sent by e‑mail. Answers were requested once per institution.

RESULTS

In all, 48 completed questionnaires from university hospitals, general and non-academic hospitals, and private practices were received and considered for evaluation. Prospective and reactive RM was commonly conducted within interprofessional teams; 88% of all institutions performed prospective risk analyses. Most institutions (71%) reported incidents or near-events using multiple reporting systems. Results were presented to the team in 71% for prospective analyses and 85% for analyses of incidents. Risk conferences take place in 46% of institutions. 42% nominated a manager/committee for RM. Knowledge concerning RM was mostly rated "satisfying" (44%). However, 65% of all institutions require more information about RM by professional societies.

CONCLUSION

Our results revealed heterogeneous patterns of RM in RO departments, although most departments adhered to common recommendations. Identified mismatches between recommendations and implementation of RM provide baseline data for future research and support definition of teaching content.

COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY UTILIZATION FOR TELECOBALT60 TO ACHIEVE THE RADIATION CERTAINTY

OBJECTIVE

The aim: This research aimed to show the achievement of Telecobalt60 radiation certainty using computed radiography, in comparation with non-verified computed radiography.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: This research is a quantitative study, randomized double-blind, and consecutive sampling design. The study was conducted by observing and com¬paring the data of verified computed radiography (VerC) computed radiograph for Telecobalt60 compared to the non-verified computed radiography (nVerC) Telecobalt60 data.

RESULTS

Results: The results showed that there are significant statistical differences in several measurement characteristics between the verified computed radiography arm and the non-verified computed radiography arm. All of the value divergences of the verified computed radiography arm are less than 7 mm while the non-verified computed radiography arm are 7 mm or more (P<0.050). Furthermore, all of the edge aspect of measurement in the verified computed radiography arms are less than the non-verified computed radiography, all without manual block utilization (P<0.050).

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: We conclude that Telecobalt60 radiation certainty is significantly better achieved by using computed radiography, when compared to non-verified computed radiography Telecobalt60 use. This research contributes to provide evidence based for better Telecobalt60 radiation accuracy and quality of radiotherapy outcome by using computed radiography.

Errors detected during physics plan review for external beam radiotherapy

Background and purpose

Risk management in radiotherapy is of high importance. There is not much data published on errors occurring in the treatment planning process of external beam techniques. The aim of this study was to investigate errors occurring during physics plan review in external beam radiotherapy.

Materials and methods

Over a period of 14 months errors observed during the physical review process are reported. The errors were grouped and evaluated regarding treatment machine, technique, and treatment site. In addition, a correlation between frequency of errors and staff shortage was analyzed.

Results

Subgroups of grave errors (g-errors) and slight errors (s-errors) were defined to consider the different impact on the patient and clinical workflow of the errors. In 1056 plans reviewed, 110 errors (41 g-errors, 69 s-errors) were detected. The most common g-errors and s-errors were "Wrong gantry angle at setup field" (n = 19) and "Wrong field label" (n = 24), respectively. A correlation of number of errors and treatment machine, technique, or anatomical site could not be found. No correlation between staff shortage and number of errors was observed.

Conclusions

The process of reviewing treatment plans is a relevant topic to consider in risk analysis of the radiotherapy workflow. The review process could be improved by enhancements in the treatment planning systems, use of digital dose prescription, and treatment planning templates.

Quality and Safety With Technological Advancements in Radiotherapy: An Overview and Journey Narrative From a Low- and Middle-Income Country Institution

To present an overview of quality and safety in radiotherapy from the context of low- and middle-income countries on the basis of a recently conducted annual meeting of our institution and our experience of implementing an error management system at our center.

Quality and safety improvement with evolving technology in LMIC, a journey described.

A Modular System for Treating Moving Anatomical Targets With Scanned Ion Beams at Multiple Facilities: Pre-Clinical Testing for Quality and Safety of Beam Delivery

Background

Quality management and safety are integral to modern radiotherapy. New radiotherapy technologies require new consensus guidelines on quality and safety. Established analysis strategies, such as the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) and incident learning systems have been developed as tools to assess the safety of several types of radiation therapies. An extensive literature documents the widespread application of risk analysis methods to photon radiation therapy. Relatively little attention has been paid to performing risk analyses of nascent radiation therapy systems to treat moving tumors with scanned heavy ion beams. The purpose of this study was to apply a comprehensive safety analysis strategy to a motion-synchronized dose delivery system (M-DDS) for ion therapy.

Methods

We applied a risk analysis method to new treatment planning and treatment delivery processes with scanned heavy ion beams. The processes utilize a prototype, modular dose delivery system, currently undergoing preclinical testing, that provides new capabilities for treating moving anatomy. Each step in the treatment process was listed in a process map, potential errors for each step were identified and scored using the risk probability number in an FMEA, and the possible causes of each error were described in a fault tree analysis. Solutions were identified to mitigate the risk of these errors, including permanent corrective actions, periodic quality assurance (QA) tests, and patient specific QA (PSQA) tests. Each solution was tested experimentally.

Results

The analysis revealed 58 potential errors that could compromise beam delivery quality or safety. Each of the 14 binary (pass-or-fail) tests passed. Each of the nine QA and four PSQA tests were within anticipated clinical specifications. The modular M-DDS was modified accordingly, and was found to function at two centers.

Conclusion

We have applied a comprehensive risk analysis strategy to the M-DDS and shown that it is a clinically viable motion mitigation strategy. The described strategy can be utilized at any ion therapy center that operates with the modular M-DDS. The approach can also be adapted for use at other facilities and can be combined with existing safety analysis systems.

[Safety in radiationtherapy. Results after 9 years implementation of incidents reporting system]

INTRODUCTION

Radiation therapy (RT) is a complex process that employs high-dose radiation for therapeutic purposes. Incident reporting and analysis, in addition to being a legal requirement in RT, provides information that helps to improve patient safety. This paper describes our experiences over a 9 year period in which a local incident reporting and learning system (SNAI) specific to RT was employed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The center has 4 lineal accelerators that treat a total of 1900 patients annually. The first action taken with a view to improving patient safety was the implementation of a multidisciplinary RT safety group (GSRT), who decided to employing a methodology based on incident reporting. For this purpose, a local SNAI was implemented, adapting the ROSEIS incident reporting system used and consolidated by the European Society of Radiation Oncology Therapy (ESTRO). All incidents in which patients received an incorrect RT session were considered adverse events (AE) and were thus analyzed. Finally, the opinion of the professionals involved in relation to the SNAI and the functioning of the safety group was evaluated by means of a survey.

RESULTS

From June 2009 to October 2018, 1708 incidents were recorded, with an increasing incidence observed over time. Approximately 2.5% of the incidents reported were AE. The remainders were events that did not affect the patient. As many as 55% of incidents were detected in the treatment administration phase. Radiotherapy technicians were the professionals who reported more incidents. The majority of recorded cases originated from procedural shortcomings relating to communication or work protocols. Implemented remedial actions were aimed at reducing the frequency of AE and facilitating its early detection. Actions employed were essentially: drafting and revision of protocols and circuits, implementation of checklists, and training actions. Of the workers surveyed, 85% positively valued the incorporation of the SNAI and the existence of a safety group. However, 15% of the professionals considered that the methodology used in the analysis of incidents was not totally objective i.e punitive in nature.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety of the patient receiving RT has been approached from a methodology based on a local SNAI. The analysis of reported incidents has promoted various actions aimed at improving the safety of patients receiving RT. The methodology used has been well received by the workers and has helped to introduce a culture of patient safety for the majority of professionals involved. Furthermore, the local SNAI facilitates compliance with European regulations regarding the obligation to record incidents in RT.

Patient safety in radiation oncology in Spain: a need to change

PURPOSE

The Working Group on Patient Safety and Quality of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology, revised the most relevant national and international recommendations, selecting a series of important aspects for patient safety, evaluating whether they are included in Spanish legislation MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have considered a concept as relevant to the patient safety in radiotherapy if so defined in at least 8 of the 16 documents reviewed.

RESULTS

12 subjects were selected: training and qualification, human resources, protocols, safety culture, communication, peer review, accreditation: audits, checklists, areas without interruptions, maps of processes and risks, prospective risk analysis, notification, registration and incident learning, and quality control of the equipment.

CONCLUSIONS

At the legislative level, as well as the professional organizations and the health center directorates, the implementation of safety culture must continue to be fostered. Only in this environment will the tools and measures to increase patient safety be effective. The current Spanish legislation must be revised and updated, in accordance with directive 2013/59/EURATOM and the Patient Safety Strategy 2015-2020 of the Spanish National Health System, introducing the obligation to perform risk analysis and incidents management. Audits and accreditations must be carried out, thus raising the general level of practice of the specialty. In this process, the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology must continue playing its fundamental role, collaborating with the institutions and the rest of the scientific societies involved in the radiotherapy process, issuing recommendations on patient safety and disseminating the safety culture in our specialty.

Patient safety in external beam radiotherapy, results of the ACCIRAD project: Recommendations for radiotherapy institutions and national authorities on assessing risks and analysing adverse error-events and near misses

The ACCIRAD project, commissioned by the European Commission (EC) to develop guidelines for risk analysis of accidental and unintended exposures in external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), was completed in the year 2014. In 2015, the "General guidelines on risk management in external beam radiotherapy" were published as EC report Radiation Protection (RP)-181. The present document is the third and final report of the findings from the ACCIRAD project. The main aim of this paper is to describe the key features of the risk management process and to provide general guidelines for radiotherapy departments and national authorities on risk assessment and analysis of adverse error-events and near misses. The recommendations provided here and in EC report RP-181 are aimed at promoting the harmonisation of risk management systems across Europe, improving patient safety, and enabling more reliable inter-country comparisons.