Sean L Berry1, Kevin P Tierney2, Sharif Elguindi2, James G Mechalakos2. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: BerryS@MSKCC.org. 2. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: An electronic checklist has been designed with the intention of reducing errors while minimizing user effort in completing the checklist. We analyze the clinical use and evolution of the checklist over the past 5 years and review data in an incident learning system (ILS) to investigate whether it has contributed to an improvement in patient safety. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The checklist is written as a standalone HTML application using VBScript. User selection of pertinent demographic details limits the display of checklist items only to those necessary for the particular clinical scenario. Ten common clinical scenarios were used to illustrate the difference between the maximum possible number of checklist items available in the code versus the number displayed to the user at any one time. An ILS database of errors and near misses was reviewed to evaluate whether the checklist influenced the occurrence of reported events. RESULTS: Over 5 years, the number of checklist items available in the code nearly doubled, whereas the number displayed to the user at any one time stayed constant. Events reported in our ILS related to the beam energy used with pacemakers, projection of anatomy on digitally reconstructed radiographs, orthogonality of setup fields, and field extension beyond match lines, did not recur after the items were added to the checklist. Other events related to bolus documentation and breakpoints continued to be reported. CONCLUSION: Our checklist is adaptable to the introduction of new technologies, transitions between planning systems, and to errors and near misses recorded in the ILS. The electronic format allows us to restrict user display to a small, relevant, subset of possible checklist items, limiting the planner effort needed to review and complete the checklist.
INTRODUCTION: An electronic checklist has been designed with the intention of reducing errors while minimizing user effort in completing the checklist. We analyze the clinical use and evolution of the checklist over the past 5 years and review data in an incident learning system (ILS) to investigate whether it has contributed to an improvement in patient safety. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The checklist is written as a standalone HTML application using VBScript. User selection of pertinent demographic details limits the display of checklist items only to those necessary for the particular clinical scenario. Ten common clinical scenarios were used to illustrate the difference between the maximum possible number of checklist items available in the code versus the number displayed to the user at any one time. An ILS database of errors and near misses was reviewed to evaluate whether the checklist influenced the occurrence of reported events. RESULTS: Over 5 years, the number of checklist items available in the code nearly doubled, whereas the number displayed to the user at any one time stayed constant. Events reported in our ILS related to the beam energy used with pacemakers, projection of anatomy on digitally reconstructed radiographs, orthogonality of setup fields, and field extension beyond match lines, did not recur after the items were added to the checklist. Other events related to bolus documentation and breakpoints continued to be reported. CONCLUSION: Our checklist is adaptable to the introduction of new technologies, transitions between planning systems, and to errors and near misses recorded in the ILS. The electronic format allows us to restrict user display to a small, relevant, subset of possible checklist items, limiting the planner effort needed to review and complete the checklist.
Authors: Alex B Haynes; Thomas G Weiser; William R Berry; Stuart R Lipsitz; Abdel-Hadi S Breizat; E Patchen Dellinger; Teodoro Herbosa; Sudhir Joseph; Pascience L Kibatala; Marie Carmela M Lapitan; Alan F Merry; Krishna Moorthy; Richard K Reznick; Bryce Taylor; Atul A Gawande Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-01-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R Mohan; G Barest; L J Brewster; C S Chui; G J Kutcher; J S Laughlin; Z Fuks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1988-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Scott W Hadley; Marc L Kessler; Dale W Litzenberg; Choonik Lee; Jim Irrer; Xiaoping Chen; Eduardo Acosta; Grant Weyburne; Wayne Keranen; Kwok Lam; Elizabeth Covington; Kelly C Younge; Martha M Matuszak; Jean M Moran Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Elizabeth L Covington; Xiaoping Chen; Kelly C Younge; Choonik Lee; Martha M Matuszak; Marc L Kessler; Wayne Keranen; Eduardo Acosta; Ashley M Dougherty; Stephanie E Filpansick; Jean M Moran Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Luis E Fong de Los Santos; Suzanne Evans; Eric C Ford; James E Gaiser; Sandra E Hayden; Kristina E Huffman; Jennifer L Johnson; James G Mechalakos; Robin L Stern; Stephanie Terezakis; Bruce R Thomadsen; Peter J Pronovost; Lynne A Fairobent Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2015-05-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Ping Xia; Danielle LaHurd; Peng Qi; Anthony Mastroianni; Daesung Lee; Anthony Magnelli; Eric Murray; Matt Kolar; Bingqi Guo; Tim Meier; Samual T Chao; John H Suh; Naichang Yu Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 2.102