Prog Med Phys.  2015 Jun;26(2):112-117. 10.14316/pmp.2015.26.2.112.

Basic Data Analysis of the Quality Control for Patient Safety in Department of Radiation Oncology at Yeungnam University Hospital

• Oh SA
• Kim SK
• Yea JW
• Kang MK
• Lee JH
• Lee R

• KMID: 1889944
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2015.26.2.112

Abstract

In order to establish the quality control on patient safety following the guideline presented by American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) TG-100 committee, we aim to analyze the modes based on errors occurred during treatment of patients at the radiation oncology department at Yeungnam University Hospital and establish a quality control guideline for patient safety when patient-centered radiation treatment is conducted. We aim to analyze the errors that can occur during radiation treatment at the radiation department, and assess the frequency of error, the severity of error affecting patients, and probability of proceeding without noticing error, with scores. The places where errors can take place were divided into CT simulation treatment room, treatment planning room, and treatment room for the analysis. In CT simulation treatment room, an error from using the immobilization device showed the highest Risk Priority Number (RPN) value of 60, and an error from simulation treatment information input showed the lowest of 6. In treatment planning room, an error from selecting the radiation dose calculation model showed the highest RPN value of 168, and an error of patient treatment start date showed the lowest of 36. In treatment room, a Table Bar error showed the highest RPN value of 252, a weight change error showed 190, and a Pillow error showed the lowest of 24.

Keyword

AAPM TG-100; Patient safety; Error analysis; Risk priority number

MeSH Terms

Humans
Immobilization
Patient Safety*
Quality Control*
Radiation Oncology*
Statistics as Topic*

Reference

References

1. Rao M, Wu J, Cao D, et al. Dosimetric impact of breathing motion in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment using image-modulated radiotherapy andvolumetric modulated arc therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 83, E251 (. 2012.

2. Choa KSC, Practical essentials of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, 2nd, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia. 2005.

3. Palta JR, Mackie TR, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy/The State of the Art, Medical Physics Publishing, Wisconsin. 2003.

4. Oh SA, Kang MK, Yea JW, Kim SK, Oh YK. Study of the penumbra for high-energy photon beams with GafchromicTM EBT2 Films. J. Korean Phy. Soc. 60 (11), 1973 (. 2012.

5. AAPM TG-100. A new paradigm for quality management in radiation therapy:. 2013. http://chapter.aapm.org/pennohio/2013FallSympPresentations/SI11_Saiful_Huq.pdf.

6. The philosophy of TG 100. What it is and what it is not:. 2014. http://www.aapm.org/meetings/amos2/pdf/35-9921–51509–218.pdf.

7. Sara B, Marie CC, Anna C, et al. Application of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to pretreatment phases in tomotherapy. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 14(5):265–277. 2013.

8. Huq MS, Fraass BA, Dunscombe PB, et al. A Method for evaluating quality assurance needs in radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 71(1):S170–S173. 2008.

9. Ford EC, Gaudette R, Myers L, et al. Evaluation of safety in a radiation oncology setting using failure mode and effects analysis. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 74(3):852–858. 2009.

10. Shafiq J, Barton M, Noble D, et al. An international review of patient safety measures in radiotherapy practice. Radiother Oncol. 92(1):15–21. 2009.

11. Ishikura S. Quality assurance of radiotherapy in cancer treatment: toward improvement of patient safety and quality of care. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 38(11):723–9. 2008.