Laura Masini1, Laura Donis1, Gianfranco Loi2, Eleonora Mones2, Elisa Molina1, Cesare Bolchini1, Marco Krengli3. 1. Department of Radiotherapy, University Hospital Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy. 2. Department of Medical Physics, University Hospital Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy. 3. Department of Radiotherapy, University Hospital Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy; Department of Translational Medicine, University of Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy. Electronic address: krengli@med.unipmn.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the application of the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) to intracranial stereotactic radiation surgery (SRS) by linear accelerator in order to identify the potential failure modes in the process tree and adopt appropriate safety measures to prevent adverse events (AEs) and near-misses, thus improving the process quality. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A working group was set up to perform FMEA for intracranial SRS in the framework of a quality assurance program. FMEA was performed in 4 consecutive tasks: (1) creation of a visual map of the process; (2) identification of possible failure modes; (3) assignment of a risk probability number (RPN) to each failure mode based on tabulated scores of severity, frequency of occurrence and detectability; and (4) identification of preventive measures to minimize the risk of occurrence. RESULTS: The whole SRS procedure was subdivided into 73 single steps; 116 total possible failure modes were identified and a score of severity, occurrence, and detectability was assigned to each. Based on these scores, RPN was calculated for each failure mode thus obtaining values from 1 to 180. In our analysis, 112/116 (96.6%) RPN values were <60, 2 (1.7%) between 60 and 125 (63, 70), and 2 (1.7%) >125 (135, 180). The 2 highest RPN scores were assigned to the risk of using the wrong collimator's size and incorrect coordinates on the laser target localizer frame. CONCLUSION: Failure modes and effects analysis is a simple and practical proactive tool for systematic analysis of risks in radiation therapy. In our experience of SRS, FMEA led to the adoption of major changes in various steps of the SRS procedure.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the application of the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) to intracranial stereotactic radiation surgery (SRS) by linear accelerator in order to identify the potential failure modes in the process tree and adopt appropriate safety measures to prevent adverse events (AEs) and near-misses, thus improving the process quality. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A working group was set up to perform FMEA for intracranial SRS in the framework of a quality assurance program. FMEA was performed in 4 consecutive tasks: (1) creation of a visual map of the process; (2) identification of possible failure modes; (3) assignment of a risk probability number (RPN) to each failure mode based on tabulated scores of severity, frequency of occurrence and detectability; and (4) identification of preventive measures to minimize the risk of occurrence. RESULTS: The whole SRS procedure was subdivided into 73 single steps; 116 total possible failure modes were identified and a score of severity, occurrence, and detectability was assigned to each. Based on these scores, RPN was calculated for each failure mode thus obtaining values from 1 to 180. In our analysis, 112/116 (96.6%) RPN values were <60, 2 (1.7%) between 60 and 125 (63, 70), and 2 (1.7%) >125 (135, 180). The 2 highest RPN scores were assigned to the risk of using the wrong collimator's size and incorrect coordinates on the laser target localizer frame. CONCLUSION: Failure modes and effects analysis is a simple and practical proactive tool for systematic analysis of risks in radiation therapy. In our experience of SRS, FMEA led to the adoption of major changes in various steps of the SRS procedure.
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: 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: Blanca Ibanez-Rosello; Juan Antonio Bautista-Ballesteros; Jorge Bonaque; Francisco Celada; Françoise Lliso; Vicente Carmona; Jose Gimeno-Olmos; Zoubir Ouhib; Joan Rosello; Jose Perez-Calatayud Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2016-12-20