PURPOSE: Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is a widely used tool for prospectively evaluating safety and reliability. We report our experiences in applying FMEA in the setting of radiation oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed an FMEA analysis for our external beam radiation therapy service, which consisted of the following tasks: (1) create a visual map of the process, (2) identify possible failure modes; assign risk probability numbers (RPN) to each failure mode based on tabulated scores for the severity, frequency of occurrence, and detectability, each on a scale of 1 to 10; and (3) identify improvements that are both feasible and effective. The RPN scores can span a range of 1 to 1000, with higher scores indicating the relative importance of a given failure mode. RESULTS: Our process map consisted of 269 different nodes. We identified 127 possible failure modes with RPN scores ranging from 2 to 160. Fifteen of the top-ranked failure modes were considered for process improvements, representing RPN scores of 75 and more. These specific improvement suggestions were incorporated into our practice with a review and implementation by each department team responsible for the process. CONCLUSIONS: The FMEA technique provides a systematic method for finding vulnerabilities in a process before they result in an error. The FMEA framework can naturally incorporate further quantification and monitoring. A general-use system for incident and near miss reporting would be useful in this regard.
PURPOSE: Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is a widely used tool for prospectively evaluating safety and reliability. We report our experiences in applying FMEA in the setting of radiation oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed an FMEA analysis for our external beam radiation therapy service, which consisted of the following tasks: (1) create a visual map of the process, (2) identify possible failure modes; assign risk probability numbers (RPN) to each failure mode based on tabulated scores for the severity, frequency of occurrence, and detectability, each on a scale of 1 to 10; and (3) identify improvements that are both feasible and effective. The RPN scores can span a range of 1 to 1000, with higher scores indicating the relative importance of a given failure mode. RESULTS: Our process map consisted of 269 different nodes. We identified 127 possible failure modes with RPN scores ranging from 2 to 160. Fifteen of the top-ranked failure modes were considered for process improvements, representing RPN scores of 75 and more. These specific improvement suggestions were incorporated into our practice with a review and implementation by each department team responsible for the process. CONCLUSIONS: The FMEA technique provides a systematic method for finding vulnerabilities in a process before they result in an error. The FMEA framework can naturally incorporate further quantification and monitoring. A general-use system for incident and near miss reporting would be useful in this regard.
Authors: G J Kutcher; L Coia; M Gillin; W F Hanson; S Leibel; R J Morton; J R Palta; J A Purdy; L E Reinstein; G K Svensson Journal: Med Phys Date: 1994-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: M Saiful Huq; Benedick A Fraass; Peter B Dunscombe; John P Gibbons; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Paul M Medin; Arno Mundt; Sassa Mutic; Jatinder R Palta; Bruce R Thomadsen; Jeffrey F Williamson; Ellen D Yorke Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: B Ibanez-Rosello; J A Bautista; J Bonaque; J Perez-Calatayud; A Gonzalez-Sanchis; J Lopez-Torrecilla; L Brualla-Gonzalez; T Garcia-Hernandez; A Vicedo-Gonzalez; D Granero; A Serrano; B Borderia; C Solera; J Rosello Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: M Saiful Huq; Benedick A Fraass; Peter B Dunscombe; John P Gibbons; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Arno J Mundt; Sasa Mutic; Jatinder R Palta; Frank Rath; Bruce R Thomadsen; Jeffrey F Williamson; Ellen D Yorke Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Maurizio Portaluri; Fulvio Italo Maria Fucilli; Emilio Antonio Luca Gianicolo; Francesco Tramacere; Maria Carmen Francavilla; Cristina De Tommaso; Roberta Castagna; Giorgio Pili Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Antonio L Damato; Larissa J Lee; Mandar S Bhagwat; Ivan Buzurovic; Robert A Cormack; Susan Finucane; Jorgen L Hansen; Desmond A O'Farrell; Alecia Offiong; Una Randall; Scott Friesen; Akila N Viswanathan Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Andrea Baehr; Daniel Hummel; Tobias Gauer; Michael Oertel; Christopher Kittel; Anastassia Löser; Manuel Todorovic; Cordula Petersen; Andreas Krüll; Markus Buchgeister Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Jacqueline Tonigan Faught; Peter A Balter; Jennifer L Johnson; Stephen F Kry; Laurence E Court; Francesco C Stingo; David S Followill Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 4.071