Improving Quality of Patient Care by Improving Daily Practice in Radiation Oncology

Changing me to we: Developing teambuilding in radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

There has been a causal link identified within the literature between poor team function and errors, patient outcomes, staff satisfaction and performance. Lacking is supporting evidence on teambuilding and its impact on overall team performance and team dynamics. Within radiation therapy, there is difficulty in understanding the inner workings of team dynamics due to the unique complex nature of teams and with very little evidence on the impact of team building specific to radiation therapy. The focus of this research is to form a better understanding of the effects of teambuilding before and after a teambuilding education session.The knowledge gained can help in future trainings to promote and facilitate teambuilding to develop team dynamics and lead a change in culture.

METHODS

Team building sessions were booked and scheduled for 148 radiation therapists. Pre and post session evaluations were distributed to all participants and collected at the end of each team building session. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze Likert scale responses. Open-ended question responses were coded and analyzed for emerging themes using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

110 of 148 radiation therapists attended one of the scheduled team building sessions. Pre-session evaluations indicated radiation therapists have a good understanding of factors that affect teamwork (88% agree); are aware of the multi-generational impact (78% agree); have the skill set to build a respectful team (86% agree); and are comfortable dealing with conflict (67% agree). Post-session evaluations indicated that participants had gained increased knowledge on teamwork (66.3% agree; 30.7% strongly agree); are more aware of the generational impact within teams (59% agree); new strategiesdeveloped to help improve team dynamics and the ability to use the lessons learnt immediately (67% and 71% respectively agree). Open ended comments indicated an interest in additional teambuilding sessions and further education on conflict resolution.

CONCLUSION

Results showed an increased awareness of the factors that impact team dynamics amongst radiation therapists and an interest in receiving further education in teambuilding. Findings will be utilized to better inform debate in future development of teambuilding educational sessions to improve overall team dynamics in radiation therapy.

Understanding team dynamics to promote team building in a radiotherapy department

Background:

Teamwork is a central framework in healthcare delivery. Team dynamics can impact the team as a whole and has been identified within the literature as a contributory factor to quality and safety, patient satisfaction, staff satisfaction and overall performance. Within radiation therapy (RT), teamwork is essential in the delivery of high-quality care, yet team building and team development is under-reported.

Aim:

The focus of this research is to form a better understanding of what plays an impact on teams in a large urban RT cancer centre and how to better engage staff to work together, improve team dynamics and promote team building.

Materials and Methods:

An electronic search of the literature was conducted to better inform debate and aid in the development of team-building sessions in a busy radiotherapy department. Abstracts were screened and relevant articles selected if they met the search criteria that included relevancy related to team building, contributory factors on team dynamics, team-based learning, team performance and implication of civility.

Results:

A total of 45 articles were included in the final analysis. The majority were from the disciplines of medicine (45%), business (22%) and nursing (18%). Only 3 of the 45 articles (7%) focused on the profession of RT. Most articles discussed more than 1 theme with team dynamics and team building being the most common themes discussed in 16 articles each (36%). Other common themes included teamwork (31%), respect and civility (20%), leadership and hierarchy (11%), medical errors (11%) and team training (11%). Only 3 of the 45 articles (7%) focused on RT.

Conclusion:

There is a lack of longitudinal evidence to support the impact of team building sessions to improve team dynamics and promote a positive, cohesive team environment. Specifically within RT, the impact team building has on team dynamics has been under investigation.

Highlights:

High-quality patient care can be linked to team collaboration and cohesiveness. Changing the culture within a team and engaging in civility and respect in everyday practice has the potential to improve team dynamics, patient safety, staff and patient satisfaction.

The journey towards safer radiotherapy: are we on a road to nowhere?

Background:

Harnessing available knowledge and learning from our errors are prerequisites of delivering on the challenge of improving patient safety. Towards Safer Radiotherapy, published in 2008, was a response from the UK’s (UK) radiotherapy community to concerns arising from high profile errors. The report was a driver for the development of a national reporting and learning system for radiotherapy.

Materials and methods:

A literature review was conducted covering the years from 2009 to 2020. Search terms used were radiotherapy errors, patient safety, incident learning, human factors and trend analysis. A total of 10 papers reported recommendations or implementation of changes to service delivery models following systematic error analysis. None of these were from UK service providers.

Conclusions:

Twelve years on from the publication of Towards Safer Radiotherapy, there is little evidence of impact on safety culture within the UK radiotherapy community. Although the UK has a large radiotherapy error dataset, there remain unanswered questions about the impact on the safety culture in radiotherapy.

Assessment of the use of different imaging and delivery techniques for cranial treatments on the Halcyon linac

Purpose

In this work, we investigated the effect on the workflow and setup accuracy of using surface guided radiation therapy (SGRT) for patient setup, megavoltage cone beam CT (MVCBCT) or kilovoltage cone beam CT (kVCBCT) for imaging and fixed IMRT or volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for treatment delivery with the Halcyon linac.

Methods

We performed a retrospective investigation of 272 treatment fractions, using three different workflows. The first and second workflows used MVCBCT and fixed IMRT for imaging and treatment delivery, and the second one also used SGRT for patient setup. The third workflow used SGRT for setup, kVCBCT for imaging and VMAT for delivery. Workflows were evaluated by comparing the number of fractions requiring repeated imaging acquisitions and the time required for setup, imaging and treatment delivery. Setup position accuracy was assessed by comparing the daily kV‐ or MV‐ CBCT with the planning CT and measuring the residual rotational errors for pitch, yaw and roll angles.

Results

Without the use of SGRT, the imaging fields were delivered more than once on 11.1% of the fractions, while re‐imaging was necessary in 5.5% of the fractions using SGRT. The total treatment time, including setup, imaging, and delivery, for the three workflows was 531 ± 157 s, 503 ± 130 s and 457 ± 91 s, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed when comparing the third workflow with the first two. The total residual rotational errors were 1.96 ± 1.29°, 1.28 ± 0.67° and 1.22 ± 0.76° and statistically significant differences were observed when comparing workflows with and without SGRT.

Conclusions

The use of SGRT allowed for a reduction of re‐imaging during patient setup and improved patient position accuracy by reducing residual rotational errors. A reduction in treatment time using kVCBCT with SGRT was observed. The most efficient workflow was the one including kVCBCT and SGRT for setup and VMAT for delivery.

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.

Creating a Culture of Continuous Improvement in Outpatient Laboratories: Effects on Wait Times, Employee Engagement, and Efficiency

Transforming health care remains a challenge as many continuous improvement (CI) initiatives fail or are not sustained. Although the literature suggests the importance of culture, few studies provide evidence of cultural change creating sustained CI. This improvement initiative focused on creating cultural change through goal alignment, visual management, and empowering frontline employees. Data included 113 133 encounters. Cochran-Armitage tests and X-bar charting compared wait times during the CI initiative. Odds of waiting <15 minutes increased in both phase 2 (odds ratio = 3.57, 95% confidence interval = [3.43-3.71]) and phase 3 (odds ratio = 5.39, 95% confidence interval = [5.07, 5.74]). At 3 years follow-up, 95% of wait times were <15 minutes. Productivity increased from 519 to 644 patients/full-time equivalent/month; 33/42 Press Ganey employee engagement components significantly improved. This study demonstrates the efficacy of a culture of CI approach to sustain wait time improvement in outpatient laboratory services, and should be considered for application in other areas of health care quality.

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.

What is the degree of innovation routinely implemented in Dutch radiotherapy centres? A multicentre cross-sectional study

Objective:

To study the implementation of innovation activities in Dutch radiotherapy (RT) centres in a broad sense (product, technological, market and organizational innovations).

Methods:

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in 15 Dutch RT centres. A list of innovations implemented from 2011 to 2013 was drawn up for each centre using semi-structured interviews. These innovations were classified into innovation categories according to previously defined innovation indicators. Where applicable, each innovation was rated by each centre on the effort required to implement it and on its expected effects, to get an impression of how far reaching and radical the innovations were and to be able to compare the number of innovations between centres.

Results:

The participating RT centres in the Netherlands implemented 12 innovations per year on average (range 5–25); this number was not significantly different for academic (n = 13) or non-academic centres (n = 10). Several centres were dealing with the same innovations at the same time. The average required effort and expected output did not differ significantly between product, technological and organizational innovation or between academic and non-academic centres.

Conclusion:

The number of innovations observed per centre varied across a large range, with a large overlap in terms of the type of innovations that were implemented. Registering innovations using the innovation indicators applied in our study would make it possible to improve collaboration between centres, e.g. with common training modules, to avoid duplication of work.

Advances in knowledge:

This study is the first of its kind investigating innovation implementation in RT in a broad sense.

The report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management

The increasing complexity of modern radiation therapy planning and delivery challenges traditional prescriptive quality management (QM) methods, such as many of those included in guidelines published by organizations such as the AAPM, ASTRO, ACR, ESTRO, and IAEA. These prescriptive guidelines have traditionally focused on monitoring all aspects of the functional performance of radiotherapy (RT) equipment by comparing parameters against tolerances set at strict but achievable values. Many errors that occur in radiation oncology are not due to failures in devices and software; rather they are failures in workflow and process. A systematic understanding of the likelihood and clinical impact of possible failures throughout a course of radiotherapy is needed to direct limit QM resources efficiently to produce maximum safety and quality of patient care. Task Group 100 of the AAPM has taken a broad view of these issues and has developed a framework for designing QM activities, based on estimates of the probability of identified failures and their clinical outcome through the RT planning and delivery process. The Task Group has chosen a specific radiotherapy process required for "intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)" as a case study. The goal of this work is to apply modern risk-based analysis techniques to this complex RT process in order to demonstrate to the RT community that such techniques may help identify more effective and efficient ways to enhance the safety and quality of our treatment processes. The task group generated by consensus an example quality management program strategy for the IMRT process performed at the institution of one of the authors. This report describes the methodology and nomenclature developed, presents the process maps, FMEAs, fault trees, and QM programs developed, and makes suggestions on how this information could be used in the clinic. The development and implementation of risk-assessment techniques will make radiation therapy safer and more efficient.

A pan-Canadian survey of peer review practices in radiation oncology

PURPOSE

Peer review (PR) of treatment plans has been recognized internationally as a key component of quality care in radiation oncology programs (ROPs). We conducted a survey of Canadian ROPs to describe current PR practices and identify barriers/facilitators to PR optimization.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A 42-item e-survey was sent to all Canadian ROPs (n = 44). Survey development was guided by expert consensus, literature review, and existing guidelines. One multidisciplinary response per ROP was requested.

RESULTS

Response rate was 100.0% (44/44). All ROPs (100.0%) reported conducting some PR and rated its importance as 7/10 or higher (10 = extremely important). One-half of ROPs (52.3%) peer-reviewed >80% of curative treatment plans. ROPs reported performing PR "always/almost always" pretreatment (38.6%) or before 25% of radiation therapy delivery (52.3%). The majority of ROPs reported recommending major plan changes in <5% of plans (88.6%) and documenting findings in the medical record (58.1%). Barriers to PR were radiation oncologist availability (34.1%) and time constraints (27.3%). Facilitators included development of PR standards (97.7%) and education/support (90.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The ROPs perceive PR as highly important, but substantial variation in the extent, timing, and documentation of PR exists. The understanding of current PR activities, barriers, and facilitators will inform the development of initiatives to optimize PR in radiation oncology.

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.

Clinical implementation and failure mode and effects analysis of HDR skin brachytherapy using Valencia and Leipzig surface applicators

PURPOSE

The planning procedure for Valencia and Leipzig surface applicators (VLSAs) (Nucletron, Veenendaal, The Netherlands) differs substantially from CT-based planning; the unfamiliarity could lead to significant errors. This study applies failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) to high-dose-rate (HDR) skin brachytherapy using VLSAs to ensure safety and quality.

METHOD

A multidisciplinary team created a protocol for HDR VLSA skin treatments and applied FMEA. Failure modes were identified and scored by severity, occurrence, and detectability. The clinical procedure was then revised to address high-scoring process nodes.

RESULTS

Several key components were added to the protocol to minimize risk probability numbers. (1) Diagnosis, prescription, applicator selection, and setup are reviewed at weekly quality assurance rounds. Peer review reduces the likelihood of an inappropriate treatment regime. (2) A template for HDR skin treatments was established in the clinic's electronic medical record system to standardize treatment instructions. This reduces the chances of miscommunication between the physician and planner as well as increases the detectability of an error. (3) A screen check was implemented during the second check to increase detectability of an error. (4) To reduce error probability, the treatment plan worksheet was designed to display plan parameters in a format visually similar to the treatment console display, facilitating data entry and verification. (5) VLSAs are color coded and labeled to match the electronic medical record prescriptions, simplifying in-room selection and verification.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary planning and FMEA increased detectability and reduced error probability during VLSA HDR brachytherapy. This clinical model may be useful to institutions implementing similar procedures.

Impact of the introduction of weekly radiotherapy quality assurance meetings at one UK cancer centre

OBJECTIVE

The complexity of radiotherapy planning is increasing rapidly. Delivery and planning is subject to detailed quality assurance (QA) checks. The weakest link is often the oncologists' delineation of the clinical target volume (CTV). Weekly departmental meetings for radiotherapy QA (RTQA) were introduced into the Royal Wolverhampton Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK, in October 2011. This article describes the impact of this on patient care.

METHODS

CTVs for megavoltage photon radiotherapy courses for all radical, adjuvant and palliative treatments longer than five fractions (with the exception of two field tangential breast treatments not enrolled into clinical trials) were reviewed in the RTQA meeting. Audits were carried out in January 2012 (baseline) and September 2013, each over a 4-week period. Adherence to departmental contouring protocols was assessed and the number of major and minor alterations following peer review were determined.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference for major alterations between the two study groups; 8 alterations in 80 patients (10%) for the baseline audit vs 3 alterations from 72 patients (4.2%) in the second audit (p = 0.17). A trend towards a reduction in alterations following peer review was observed. There has, however, been a change in practice resulting in a reduction in variation in CTV definition within our centre and greater adherence to protocols. There is increasing confidence in the quality and constancy of care delivered.

CONCLUSION

Introduction of a weekly QA meeting for target volume definition has facilitated consensus and adoption of departmental clinical guidelines within the unit.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The weakest areas in radiotherapy are patient selection and definition of the CTV. Engagement in high-quality RTQA is paramount. This article describes the impact of this in one UK cancer centre.

Is it possible to improve radiotherapy team members' communication skills? A randomized study assessing the efficacy of a 38-h communication skills training program

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Optimizing communication between radiotherapy team members and patients and between colleagues requires training. This study applies a randomized controlled design to assess the efficacy of a 38-h communication skills training program.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four radiotherapy teams were randomly assigned either to a training program or to a waiting list. Team members' communication skills and their self-efficacy to communicate in the context of an encounter with a simulated patient were the primary endpoints. These encounters were scheduled at the baseline and after training for the training group, and at the baseline and four months later for the waiting list group. Encounters were audiotaped and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed with content analysis software (LaComm) and by an independent rater.

RESULTS

Eighty team members were included in the study. Compared to untrained team members, trained team members used more turns of speech with content oriented toward available resources in the team (relative rate [RR]=1.38; p=0.023), more assessment utterances (RR=1.69; p<0.001), more empathy (RR=4.05; p=0.037), more negotiation (RR=2.34; p=0.021) and more emotional words (RR=1.32; p=0.030), and their self-efficacy to communicate increased (p=0.024 and p=0.008, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The training program was effective in improving team members' communication skills and their self-efficacy to communicate in the context of an encounter with a simulated patient. Future study should assess the effect of this training program on communication with actual patients and their satisfaction. Moreover a cost-benefit analysis is needed, before implementing such an intensive training program on a broader scale.

Implementing and integrating a clinically driven electronic medical record for radiation oncology in a large medical enterprise

Purpose/Objective: While our department is heavily invested in computer-based treatment planning, we historically relied on paper-based charts for management of Radiation Oncology patients. In early 2009, we initiated the process of conversion to an electronic medical record (EMR) eliminating the need for paper charts. Key goals included the ability to readily access information wherever and whenever needed, without compromising safety, treatment quality, confidentiality, or productivity.

Methodology: In February, 2009, we formed a multi-disciplinary team of Radiation Oncology physicians, nurses, therapists, administrators, physicists/dosimetrists, and information technology (IT) specialists, along with staff from the Duke Health System IT department. The team identified all existing processes and associated information/reports, established the framework for the EMR system and generated, tested and implemented specific EMR processes.

Results: Two broad classes of information were identified: information which must be readily accessed by anyone in the health system versus that used solely within the Radiation Oncology department. Examples of the former are consultation reports, weekly treatment check notes, and treatment summaries; the latter includes treatment plans, daily therapy records, and quality assurance reports. To manage the former, we utilized the enterprise-wide system, which required an intensive effort to design and implement procedures to export information from Radiation Oncology into that system. To manage “Radiation Oncology” data, we used our existing system (ARIA, Varian Medical Systems.) The ability to access both systems simultaneously from a single workstation (WS) was essential, requiring new WS and modified software. As of January, 2010, all new treatments were managed solely with an EMR. We find that an EMR makes information more widely accessible and does not compromise patient safety, treatment quality, or confidentiality. However, compared to paper charts, time required by clinicians to access/enter patient information has substantially increased. While productivity is improving with experience, substantial growth will require better integration of the system components, decreased access times, and improved user interfaces. $127K was spent on new hardware and software; elimination of paper yields projected savings of $21K/year. One year after conversion to an EMR, more than 90% of department staff favored the EMR over the previous paper charts.

Conclusion: Successful implementation of a Radiation Oncology EMR required not only the effort and commitment of all functions of the department, but support from senior health system management, corporate IT, and vendors. Realization of the full benefits of an EMR will require experience, faster/better integrated software, and continual improvement in underlying clinical processes.