D Allan Wilkinson1, Matthew D Kolar. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. wilkina@ccf.org
Abstract
PURPOSE: To apply failure modes and effects analysis to high-dose-rate treatment planning to identify the most likely and significant sources of error in the process. METHODS: We have made a list of 25 failure modes grouped into six categories (imaging, catheter reconstruction, dwell position activity, dose points/normalization, optimization/dose, and evaluation). Each mode was rated on a one to five scale for severity, likelihood of occurrence, and probability of escaping detection. An overall ranking was formed from the product of the three scores. The authors assigned scores independently and the resulting rankings were averaged. We also analyzed 44 reported medical events related to high-dose-rate treatment planning listed on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Web site and compared them with our own rankings. RESULTS: Failure modes associated with image sets, catheter reconstruction, indexer length, and incorrect dose points had the highest ranking in our analysis (scores higher than 20). The most often cited failure modes in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports examined were indexer length (20/44) and incorrect dose points (6/44). Several of our high-ranking modes are not associated with reported events. CONCLUSION: It is a useful exercise to identify failure modes locally and analyze the efficacy of the local quality assurance program. Comparison with nationally reported failures can help direct the local analysis, but the absence or small number of reports for failure modes with a high score may be owing to low detectability. Such modes obviously cannot be ignored.
PURPOSE: To apply failure modes and effects analysis to high-dose-rate treatment planning to identify the most likely and significant sources of error in the process. METHODS: We have made a list of 25 failure modes grouped into six categories (imaging, catheter reconstruction, dwell position activity, dose points/normalization, optimization/dose, and evaluation). Each mode was rated on a one to five scale for severity, likelihood of occurrence, and probability of escaping detection. An overall ranking was formed from the product of the three scores. The authors assigned scores independently and the resulting rankings were averaged. We also analyzed 44 reported medical events related to high-dose-rate treatment planning listed on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Web site and compared them with our own rankings. RESULTS: Failure modes associated with image sets, catheter reconstruction, indexer length, and incorrect dose points had the highest ranking in our analysis (scores higher than 20). The most often cited failure modes in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports examined were indexer length (20/44) and incorrect dose points (6/44). Several of our high-ranking modes are not associated with reported events. CONCLUSION: It is a useful exercise to identify failure modes locally and analyze the efficacy of the local quality assurance program. Comparison with nationally reported failures can help direct the local analysis, but the absence or small number of reports for failure modes with a high score may be owing to low detectability. Such modes obviously cannot be ignored.
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: Eric Ford; Leigh Conroy; Lei Dong; Luis Fong de Los Santos; Anne Greener; Grace Gwe-Ya Kim; Jennifer Johnson; Perry Johnson; James G Mechalakos; Brian Napolitano; Stephanie Parker; Deborah Schofield; Koren Smith; Ellen Yorke; Michelle Wells Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: David Aramburu Nunez; Michael Trager; Joel Beaudry; Gilad N Cohen; Lawrence T Dauer; Daniel Gorovets; Nima Hassan Rezaeian; Marisa A Kollmeier; Brian Leong; Patrick McCann; Matthew Williamson; Michael J Zelefsky; Antonio L Damato Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2021-06-27 Impact factor: 2.441
Authors: Markus Kellermeier; Jens Herbolzheimer; Stephan Kreppner; Michael Lotter; Vratislav Strnad; Christoph Bert Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 2.102