PURPOSE: Explore the feasibility and impact of a streamlined failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) using a structured process that is designed to minimize staff effort. METHODS: FMEA for the external beam process was conducted at an affiliate radiation oncology center that treats approximately 60 patients per day. A structured FMEA process was developed which included clearly defined roles and goals for each phase. A core group of seven people was identified and a facilitator was chosen to lead the effort. Failure modes were identified and scored according to the FMEA formalism. A risk priority number,RPN, was calculated and used to rank failure modes. Failure modes with RPN > 150 received safety improvement interventions. Staff effort was carefully tracked throughout the project. RESULTS: Fifty-two failure modes were identified, 22 collected during meetings, and 30 from take-home worksheets. The four top-ranked failure modes were: delay in film check, missing pacemaker protocol/consent, critical structures not contoured, and pregnant patient simulated without the team's knowledge of the pregnancy. These four failure modes had RPN > 150 and received safety interventions. The FMEA was completed in one month in four 1-h meetings. A total of 55 staff hours were required and, additionally, 20 h by the facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: Streamlined FMEA provides a means of accomplishing a relatively large-scale analysis with modest effort. One potential value of FMEA is that it potentially provides a means of measuring the impact of quality improvement efforts through a reduction in risk scores. Future study of this possibility is needed.
PURPOSE: Explore the feasibility and impact of a streamlined failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) using a structured process that is designed to minimize staff effort. METHODS: FMEA for the external beam process was conducted at an affiliate radiation oncology center that treats approximately 60 patients per day. A structured FMEA process was developed which included clearly defined roles and goals for each phase. A core group of seven people was identified and a facilitator was chosen to lead the effort. Failure modes were identified and scored according to the FMEA formalism. A risk priority number,RPN, was calculated and used to rank failure modes. Failure modes with RPN > 150 received safety improvement interventions. Staff effort was carefully tracked throughout the project. RESULTS: Fifty-two failure modes were identified, 22 collected during meetings, and 30 from take-home worksheets. The four top-ranked failure modes were: delay in film check, missing pacemaker protocol/consent, critical structures not contoured, and pregnant patient simulated without the team's knowledge of the pregnancy. These four failure modes had RPN > 150 and received safety interventions. The FMEA was completed in one month in four 1-h meetings. A total of 55 staff hours were required and, additionally, 20 h by the facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: Streamlined FMEA provides a means of accomplishing a relatively large-scale analysis with modest effort. One potential value of FMEA is that it potentially provides a means of measuring the impact of quality improvement efforts through a reduction in risk scores. Future study of this possibility is needed.
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: 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: 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: Koren Smith; Peter Balter; John Duhon; Gerald A White; David L Vassy; Robin A Miller; Christopher F Serago; Lynne A Fairobent Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Eric C Ford; Matthew Nyflot; Matthew B Spraker; Gabrielle Kane; Kristi R G Hendrickson Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Gayle Shier Kricke; Matthew B Carson; Young Ji Lee; Corrine Benacka; R Kannan Mutharasan; Faraz S Ahmad; Preeti Kansal; Clyde W Yancy; Allen S Anderson; Nicholas D Soulakis Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497