PURPOSE: This report describes the value of a voluntary error reporting system and the impact of a series of quality assurance (QA) measures including checklists and timeouts on reported error rates in patients receiving radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A voluntary error reporting system was instituted with the goal of recording errors, analyzing their clinical impact, and guiding the implementation of targeted QA measures. In response to errors committed in relation to treatment of the wrong patient, wrong treatment site, and wrong dose, a novel initiative involving the use of checklists and timeouts for all staff was implemented. The impact of these and other QA initiatives was analyzed. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2011, a total of 256 errors in 139 patients after 284,810 external radiation treatments (0.09% per treatment) were recorded in our voluntary error database. The incidence of errors related to patient/tumor site, treatment planning/data transfer, and patient setup/treatment delivery was 9%, 40.2%, and 50.8%, respectively. The compliance rate for the checklists and timeouts initiative was 97% (P<.001). These and other QA measures resulted in a significant reduction in many categories of errors. The introduction of checklists and timeouts has been successful in eliminating errors related to wrong patient, wrong site, and wrong dose. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive QA program that regularly monitors staff compliance together with a robust voluntary error reporting system can reduce or eliminate errors that could result in serious patient injury. We recommend the adoption of these relatively simple QA initiatives including the use of checklists and timeouts for all staff to improve the safety of patients undergoing radiation therapy in the modern era.
PURPOSE: This report describes the value of a voluntary error reporting system and the impact of a series of quality assurance (QA) measures including checklists and timeouts on reported error rates in patients receiving radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A voluntary error reporting system was instituted with the goal of recording errors, analyzing their clinical impact, and guiding the implementation of targeted QA measures. In response to errors committed in relation to treatment of the wrong patient, wrong treatment site, and wrong dose, a novel initiative involving the use of checklists and timeouts for all staff was implemented. The impact of these and other QA initiatives was analyzed. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2011, a total of 256 errors in 139 patients after 284,810 external radiation treatments (0.09% per treatment) were recorded in our voluntary error database. The incidence of errors related to patient/tumor site, treatment planning/data transfer, and patient setup/treatment delivery was 9%, 40.2%, and 50.8%, respectively. The compliance rate for the checklists and timeouts initiative was 97% (P<.001). These and other QA measures resulted in a significant reduction in many categories of errors. The introduction of checklists and timeouts has been successful in eliminating errors related to wrong patient, wrong site, and wrong dose. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive QA program that regularly monitors staff compliance together with a robust voluntary error reporting system can reduce or eliminate errors that could result in serious patient injury. We recommend the adoption of these relatively simple QA initiatives including the use of checklists and timeouts for all staff to improve the safety of patients undergoing radiation therapy in the modern era.
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: J E Johnson; C Beltran; H Wan Chan Tseung; D W Mundy; J J Kruse; T J Whitaker; M G Herman; K M Furutani Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shi Liu; Karl K Bush; Julian Bertini; Yabo Fu; Jonathan M Lewis; Daniel J Pham; Yong Yang; Thomas R Niedermayr; Lawrie Skinner; Lei Xing; Beth M Beadle; Annie Hsu; Nataliya Kovalchuk Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Indra J Das; John A Kalapurakal; Jonathan B Strauss; Brian R Zawislak; Mahesh Gopalakrishnan; Amishi Bajaj; Bharat B Mittal Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Leah Schubert; Josh Petit; Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy; Rick Peters; Jack Towery; Bryan Stump; David Westerly; Jane Ridings; Patrick Kneeland; Arthur Liu Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 2.102