Journal of patient safety · 2022
Multi-Institutional Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Incident Learning: Evaluation of Safety Barriers Using a Human Factors Analysis and Classification System.
СтатьяПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McGurk Ross, Woch Naheedy Katherine, Kosak Tara, Hobbs Amy, Mullins Brandon T, Paradis Kelly C, Kearney Meghan, Roback Donald, Durney Jeffrey, Adapa Karthik, Chera Bhishamjit S, Marks Lawrence B, Moran Jean M, Mak Raymond H, Mazur Lukasz M
Аннотация
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.
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.