Human Error Bowtie Analysis to Enhance Patient Safety in Radiation Oncology

被引:8
作者
Mullins, Brandon T. [1 ]
McGurk, Ross [1 ]
McLeod, Ronald W. [2 ]
Lindsay, Daniel [1 ]
Amos, Alison [3 ]
Gu, Deen [3 ]
Chera, Bhishamjit S. [1 ]
Marks, Lawrence [1 ]
Das, Shiva [1 ]
Mazur, Lukasz [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ North Carolina Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 USA
[2] Ron McLeod Ltd, Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
[3] Univ N Carolina, Sch Med, Dept Radiat Oncol, Div Healthcare Engn, Chapel Hill, NC 27515 USA
[4] Univ N Carolina, Sch Informat & Lib Sci, Carolina Hlth Informat Program, Chapel Hill, NC 27515 USA
关键词
PROBABILISTIC RISK-ASSESSMENT; QUALITY; THERAPY; RADIOTHERAPY; SYSTEMS;
D O I
10.1016/j.prro.2019.06.022
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: Ensuring safety within RT is of paramount importance. To further support and augment patient safety efforts, the purpose of this research was to test and refine a robust methodology for analyzing human errors that defeat individual controls within RT quality assurance (QA) programs. Methods: The method proposed for performing Bowtie Analysis (BTA) was based on training and recommendations from practitioners in the field of Human Factors and Ergonomics practice. Multidisciplinary meetings to iteratively develop BTA focused on incorrect site setup instructions was conducted. Results: From November 2015 to February 2017, we had 12 reported incidents related to site setup notes that could have led to site setup errors. Based on this data, we conducted five BTA analyses related to incorrect site setup instructions. None of the individual controls within our QA program designed to check for potential errors with site setup instructions met the level of robustness to be classified as key safeguards or barriers. Conclusions: The relatively low number of incidents causing patient harm has led us to typically assume that we have sufficient and effective controls in place to prevent serious human errors from leading to severe patient consequences. Based on our BTA, we question how well we truly understand the details of our individual controls. To meet the level of safety achieved by high reliability organizations (HROs), we need to better ensure that our controls are as reliable and robust as we assume. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Society for Radiation Oncology.
引用
收藏
页码:465 / 478
页数:14
相关论文
共 35 条
  • [1] Adams R, 2009, AM SOC THER RAD ONC
  • [2] Estimating the demand for radiotherapy from the evidence: A review of changes from 2003 to 2012
    Barton, Michael B.
    Jacob, Susannah
    Shafiq, Jesmin
    Wong, Karen
    Thompson, Stephen R.
    Hanna, Timothy P.
    Delaney, Geoff P.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2014, 112 (01) : 140 - 144
  • [3] Bogdanich W., 2010, New York Times, pA17
  • [4] Bogdanich W., 2010, New York Times, pA1
  • [5] Bogdanich WVA, 2010, NEW YORK TIMES, pA20
  • [6] Center for Chemical Process Safety, 2018, BOW RISK MAN
  • [7] Centre for Chemical Process Safety, 2015, GUID IN EV IND PROT
  • [8] Chartered Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors, HUM FACT BARR MAN
  • [9] Chera BS, 2015, JAMA ONCOL, V1, P958, DOI 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0891
  • [10] Improving Quality of Patient Care by Improving Daily Practice in Radiation Oncology
    Chera, Bhishamjit S.
    Jackson, Marianne
    Mazur, Lukasz M.
    Adams, Robert
    Chang, Sha
    Deschesne, Kathy
    Cullip, Timothy
    Marks, Lawrence B.
    [J]. SEMINARS IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2012, 22 (01) : 77 - 85