Shereef M Elnahal1, Amanda Blackford2, Koren Smith3, Annette N Souranis3, Valerie Briner3, Todd R McNutt3, Theodore L DeWeese3, Jean L Wright3, Stephanie A Terezakis3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: selnaha1@jhmi.edu. 2. Department of Oncology Biostatistics, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe radiation therapy cases during which voluntary incident reporting occurred; and identify patient- or treatment-specific factors that place patients at higher risk for incidents. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used our institution's incident learning system to build a database of patients with incident reports filed between January 2011 and December 2013. Patient- and treatment-specific data were reviewed for all patients with reported incidents, which were classified by step in the process and root cause. A control group of patients without events was generated for comparison. Summary statistics, likelihood ratios, and mixed-effect logistic regression models were used for group comparisons. RESULTS: The incident and control groups comprised 794 and 499 patients, respectively. Common root causes included documentation errors (26.5%), communication (22.5%), technical treatment planning (37.5%), and technical treatment delivery (13.5%). Incidents were more frequently reported in minors (age <18 years) than in adult patients (37.7% vs 0.4%, P<.001). Patients with head and neck (16% vs 8%, P<.001) and breast (20% vs 15%, P=.03) primaries more frequently had incidents, whereas brain (18% vs 24%, P=.008) primaries were less frequent. Larger tumors (17% vs 10% had T4 lesions, P=.02), and cases on protocol (9% vs 5%, P=.005) or with intensity modulated radiation therapy/image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (52% vs 43%, P=.001) were more likely to have incidents. CONCLUSIONS: We found several treatment- and patient-specific variables associated with incidents. These factors should be considered by treatment teams at the time of peer review to identify patients at higher risk. Larger datasets are required to recommend changes in care process standards, to minimize safety risks.
PURPOSE: To describe radiation therapy cases during which voluntary incident reporting occurred; and identify patient- or treatment-specific factors that place patients at higher risk for incidents. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used our institution's incident learning system to build a database of patients with incident reports filed between January 2011 and December 2013. Patient- and treatment-specific data were reviewed for all patients with reported incidents, which were classified by step in the process and root cause. A control group of patients without events was generated for comparison. Summary statistics, likelihood ratios, and mixed-effect logistic regression models were used for group comparisons. RESULTS: The incident and control groups comprised 794 and 499 patients, respectively. Common root causes included documentation errors (26.5%), communication (22.5%), technical treatment planning (37.5%), and technical treatment delivery (13.5%). Incidents were more frequently reported in minors (age <18 years) than in adult patients (37.7% vs 0.4%, P<.001). Patients with head and neck (16% vs 8%, P<.001) and breast (20% vs 15%, P=.03) primaries more frequently had incidents, whereas brain (18% vs 24%, P=.008) primaries were less frequent. Larger tumors (17% vs 10% had T4 lesions, P=.02), and cases on protocol (9% vs 5%, P=.005) or with intensity modulated radiation therapy/image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (52% vs 43%, P=.001) were more likely to have incidents. CONCLUSIONS: We found several treatment- and patient-specific variables associated with incidents. These factors should be considered by treatment teams at the time of peer review to identify patients at higher risk. Larger datasets are required to recommend changes in care process standards, to minimize safety risks.
Authors: Clare Snyder; Brian W Pogue; Michael Jermyn; Irwin Tendler; Jacqueline M Andreozzi; Petr Bruza; Venkat Krishnaswamy; David J Gladstone; Lesley A Jarvis Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-02
Authors: Naichang Yu; Anthony Magnelli; Danielle LaHurd; Anthony Mastroianni; Eric Murray; Mike Close; Brian Hugebeck; John H Suh; Ping Xia Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Emma Le Cornu; Shillayne Murray; Elizabeth Brown; Anne Bernard; Feng-Jung Shih; Janet Ferrari-Anderson; Michael Jenkins Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2021-05-29