PURPOSE: To improve the quality and safety of our practice of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), we analyzed the process following the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) method. METHODS: The FMEA was performed by a multidisciplinary team. For each step in the SBRT delivery process, a potential failure occurrence was derived and three factors were assessed: the probability of each occurrence, the severity if the event occurs, and the probability of detection by the treatment team. A rank of 1 to 10 was assigned to each factor, and then the multiplied ranks yielded the relative risks (risk priority numbers). The failure modes with the highest risk priority numbers were then considered to implement process improvement measures. RESULTS: A total of 28 occurrences were derived, of which nine events scored with significantly high risk priority numbers. The risk priority numbers of the highest ranked events ranged from 20 to 80. These included transcription errors of the stereotactic coordinates and machine failures. CONCLUSION: Several areas of our SBRT delivery were reconsidered in terms of process improvement, and safety measures, including treatment checklists and a surgical time-out, were added for our practice of gantry-based image-guided SBRT. This study serves as a guide for other users of SBRT to perform FMEA of their own practice.
PURPOSE: To improve the quality and safety of our practice of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), we analyzed the process following the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) method. METHODS: The FMEA was performed by a multidisciplinary team. For each step in the SBRT delivery process, a potential failure occurrence was derived and three factors were assessed: the probability of each occurrence, the severity if the event occurs, and the probability of detection by the treatment team. A rank of 1 to 10 was assigned to each factor, and then the multiplied ranks yielded the relative risks (risk priority numbers). The failure modes with the highest risk priority numbers were then considered to implement process improvement measures. RESULTS: A total of 28 occurrences were derived, of which nine events scored with significantly high risk priority numbers. The risk priority numbers of the highest ranked events ranged from 20 to 80. These included transcription errors of the stereotactic coordinates and machine failures. CONCLUSION: Several areas of our SBRT delivery were reconsidered in terms of process improvement, and safety measures, including treatment checklists and a surgical time-out, were added for our practice of gantry-based image-guided SBRT. This study serves as a guide for other users of SBRT to perform FMEA of their own practice.
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: 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: 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
Authors: Ivan Veronese; Elena De Martin; Anna Stefania Martinotti; Maria Luisa Fumagalli; Cristina Vite; Irene Redaelli; Tiziana Malatesta; Pietro Mancosu; Giancarlo Beltramo; Laura Fariselli; Marie Claire Cantone Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-06-13 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Bradley W Schuller; Angi Burns; Elizabeth A Ceilley; Alan King; Joan LeTourneau; Alexander Markovic; Lynda Sterkel; Brigid Taplin; Jennifer Wanner; Jeffrey M Albert Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Sara Broggi; Marie Claire Cantone; Anna Chiara; Nadia Di Muzio; Barbara Longobardi; Paola Mangili; Ivan Veronese Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 2.102