Jyoti Mayadev1, Sonja Dieterich2, Rick Harse2, Susan Lentz2, Mathew Mathai2, Sunita Boddu3, Marianne Kern2, Jean Courquin2, Robin L Stern2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA. Electronic address: jmayadev@ucdavis.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Scott and White Memorial Hospital, Temple, TX.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To improve the quality of our gynecologic brachytherapy practice and reduce reportable events, we performed a process analysis after the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The FMEA included a multidisciplinary team specifically targeting the tandem and ring brachytherapy procedure. The treatment process was divided into six subprocesses and failure modes (FMs). A scoring guideline was developed based on published FMEA studies and assigned through team consensus. FMs were ranked according to overall and severity scores. FM ranking >5% of the highest risk priority number (RPN) score was selected for in-depth analysis. The efficiency of each existing quality assurance to detect each FM was analyzed. RESULTS: We identified 170 FMs, and 99 were scored. RPN scores ranged from 1 to 192. Of the 13 highest-ranking FMs with RPN scores >80, half had severity scores of 8 or 9, with no mode having severity of 10. Of these FM, the originating process steps were simulation (5), treatment planning (5), treatment delivery (2), and insertion (1). Our high-ranking FM focused on communication and the potential for applicator movement. Evaluation of the efficiency and the comprehensiveness of our quality assurance program showed coverage of all but three of the top 49 FMs ranked by RPN. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first reported FMEA process for a comprehensive gynecologic brachytherapy procedure overview. We were able to identify FMs that could potentially and severely impact the patient's treatment. We continue to adjust our quality assurance program based on the results of our FMEA analysis. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: To improve the quality of our gynecologic brachytherapy practice and reduce reportable events, we performed a process analysis after the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The FMEA included a multidisciplinary team specifically targeting the tandem and ring brachytherapy procedure. The treatment process was divided into six subprocesses and failure modes (FMs). A scoring guideline was developed based on published FMEA studies and assigned through team consensus. FMs were ranked according to overall and severity scores. FM ranking >5% of the highest risk priority number (RPN) score was selected for in-depth analysis. The efficiency of each existing quality assurance to detect each FM was analyzed. RESULTS: We identified 170 FMs, and 99 were scored. RPN scores ranged from 1 to 192. Of the 13 highest-ranking FMs with RPN scores >80, half had severity scores of 8 or 9, with no mode having severity of 10. Of these FM, the originating process steps were simulation (5), treatment planning (5), treatment delivery (2), and insertion (1). Our high-ranking FM focused on communication and the potential for applicator movement. Evaluation of the efficiency and the comprehensiveness of our quality assurance program showed coverage of all but three of the top 49 FMs ranked by RPN. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first reported FMEA process for a comprehensive gynecologic brachytherapy procedure overview. We were able to identify FMs that could potentially and severely impact the patient's treatment. We continue to adjust our quality assurance program based on the results of our FMEA analysis. Published by Elsevier Inc.
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: 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: 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
Authors: Han Liu; James Kinard; Jacqueline Maurer; Qingyang Shang; Caroline Vanderstraeten; Lane Hayes; Benjamin Sintay; David Wiant Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 2.102