PURPOSE: To present our approach and results from our quality and safety program and to report their possible impact on our culture of patient safety. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We created an event learning system (termed a "good catch" program) and encouraged staff to report any quality or safety concerns in real time. Events were analyzed to assess the utility of safety barriers. A formal continuous quality improvement program was created to address these reported events and make improvements. Data on perceptions of the culture of patient safety were collected using the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality survey administered before, during, and after the initiatives. RESULTS: Of 560 good catches reported, 367 could be ascribed to a specific step on our process map. The calculated utility of safety barriers was highest for those embedded into the pretreatment quality assurance checks performed by physicists and dosimetrists (utility score 0.53; 93 of 174) and routine checks done by therapists on the initial day of therapy. Therapists and physicists reported the highest number of good catches (24% each). Sixty-four percent of events were caused by performance issues (eg, not following standardized processes, including suboptimal communications). Of 31 initiated formal improvement events, 26 were successfully implemented and sustained, 4 were discontinued, and 1 was not implemented. Most of the continuous quality improvement program was conducted by nurses (14) and therapists (7). Percentages of positive responses in the patient safety culture survey appear to have increased on all dimensions (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that event learning and continuous quality improvement programs can be successfully implemented and that there are contemporaneous improvements in the culture of safety.
PURPOSE: To present our approach and results from our quality and safety program and to report their possible impact on our culture of patient safety. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We created an event learning system (termed a "good catch" program) and encouraged staff to report any quality or safety concerns in real time. Events were analyzed to assess the utility of safety barriers. A formal continuous quality improvement program was created to address these reported events and make improvements. Data on perceptions of the culture of patient safety were collected using the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality survey administered before, during, and after the initiatives. RESULTS: Of 560 good catches reported, 367 could be ascribed to a specific step on our process map. The calculated utility of safety barriers was highest for those embedded into the pretreatment quality assurance checks performed by physicists and dosimetrists (utility score 0.53; 93 of 174) and routine checks done by therapists on the initial day of therapy. Therapists and physicists reported the highest number of good catches (24% each). Sixty-four percent of events were caused by performance issues (eg, not following standardized processes, including suboptimal communications). Of 31 initiated formal improvement events, 26 were successfully implemented and sustained, 4 were discontinued, and 1 was not implemented. Most of the continuous quality improvement program was conducted by nurses (14) and therapists (7). Percentages of positive responses in the patient safety culture survey appear to have increased on all dimensions (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that event learning and continuous quality improvement programs can be successfully implemented and that there are contemporaneous improvements in the culture of safety.
Authors: Lukasz M Mazur; Robert Adams; Prithima R Mosaly; Marjorie P Stiegler; Joseph Nuamah; Karthik Adapa; Bhishamjit Chera; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-09-29
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: Brandon T Mullins; Lukasz Mazur; Michael Dance; Ross McGurk; Eric Schreiber; Lawrence B Marks; Colette J Shen; Michael V Lawrence; Bhishamjit S Chera Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Lukasz M Mazur; Lawrence B Marks; Ron McLeod; Waldemar Karwowski; Prithima Mosaly; Gregg Tracton; Robert D Adams; Lesley Hoyle; Shiva Das; Bhishamjit Chera Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-02-07
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