Patient Safety in Radiation Oncology
Download
Report
Transcript Patient Safety in Radiation Oncology
Patient Safety in
Radiation Oncology
William R. Hendee, PhD
Distinguished Professor
Radiology, Radiation Oncology,
Biophysics, Institute for Health
& Society
Medical College of Wisconsin
Adjunct Professor
Electrical Engineering
University of WisconsinMilwaukee
Adjunct Professor of Radiology
University of New Mexico
Professor of Biomedical Engineering
Marquette University
Adjunct Professor of Radiology
University of Colorado
2010 NYT Articles on Risks of
Radiation Therapy
Radiation Offers New Cures and Ways to Do
Harm – January 2010
As Technology Surges, Radiation Safeguards
Lag – January 2010
When Medical Radiation Goes Awry - January
2010
Radiation Errors Reported in Missouri –
February 2010
VA is Fined over Errors in Radiation in
Philadelphia – March 2010
Stereotactic Radiosurgery Overdoses Harm
Patients – December 2010
© WRH (March., 2011)
Alexandra Jn-Charles, center, with her husband, Rene, and their
children, died in 2007.
Endorsers:
AAMD, ABRF, ACR, ACRO, ASRT, CAPCA,
CCPM, COMP, CRCPD, JC, NPSF, PULSE,
SROA
Who Was There?
45% medical physicists
15% administrators
10.5% radiation oncologists
7% radiation therapists
2.5% dosimetrists
2.2% regulators
6.8% other
11% did not respond to the
demographics question
© WRH (March., 2011)
The Process of Radiation Treatment
IMAGING IS
CENTRAL TO EACH
STEP IN THE
PROCESS
Diagnosis
Prescription
Following/Evaluation
Delivery
Simulation
Verification
Planning
© WRH (March., 2011)
Radiation Therapy
is a Complex Process
Disease Treated
Technology Employed
Information Flow
Human Interactions
Treatment Evaluation
© WRH (March., 2011)
It is a Complex Process
Consultation
Patient Information
Treatment
R&V
Prescription
Main
Hospital
Simulation
5 to 40 Fractions
Treatment
• Different types of cancer
• Different treatment
techniques
• Several technologies
Multi- vs. single-vendor
environments
QA
Different users:
• Physicians
• Physicists
• Therapists
• Dosimetrists
• IS Staff
• Administrative
Staff
Other
Sites
Treatment Plan
Technological
Innovations:
• EPID
• kV localize
• CBCT
• Other IGRT
• Research
• Clinical
activities
Analysis:
On-line
Off-line
Paper vs. Paperless
A lot of Information
Communication
CUSTOMIZED
*Fig. 11.1 from
Siochi, Information
resources for
radiation oncology,
Ch. 11 of a
forthcoming book:
Informatics in
Radiation
Oncology, G.
Starkschall, B.
Curran, editors.
←-------------------------------Teach ------------------------------→
←------------Troubleshoot --------------→
Data
Flow
in RO
Treat
Test (Process)
Technologize
Human Interactions in Radiation Oncology
Errors will occur because:
Process is Complex
Technology can Malfunction
Handoff Misunderstandings Occur
Humans Are Involved
© WRH (March., 2011)
TG100
Process must be Fault-Tolerant
Responsibilities must be Understood
Responsibilities must be Manageable
Early Warnings must be Available
Must Learn from others Mistakes
Corrective Actions must Occur
Audits must be Conducted
Peer Review must Happen
Process should be Accredited
© WRH (March., 2011)
What should we be doing for patient safety?
We all have different but overlapping roles in the
pursuit of improved safety:
• MDs
• Physicists
• RTTs + Dosimetrists
• Administrators
• IT
• Vendors
• Regulators
Benedick A. Fraass, PhD
Joel Goldwein MD
What should we be doing for patient safety?
We all have different but overlapping roles in the
pursuit of improved safety:
• MDs
• Physicists
• RTTs + Dosimetrists
• Administrators
• IT
• Vendors
• Regulators
Benedick A. Fraass, PhD
Safety Culture
Adhering to a culture of safety is a competency
Top down enforcement of safety first
Zero tolerance for short cuts
All staff empowered to stop a procedure
Second checks and timeouts
Make sure staff do not operate outside their
scope of practice
Well documented change of P&P process
Expectations for staff
Dan Pavord, MS, DABR
In working together, everyone
should be:
Respected
Supported
Appreciated
-Lucian Leape MD
© WRH (March., 2011)
Safety in Radiation Therapy:
Recommendations
Return control at point of care
As complexity increases, control
should be simplified
Provide improved early warnings
Vendors should address concerns
intelligibly
© WRH (March., 2011)
Safety in Radiation Therapy:
Recommendations
Billing process must be simplified
Recommend staffing levels (Blue
Book rev’d)
Therapist workstation needs human
factors engineering
Minimize cognitive clutter
© WRH (March., 2011)
Therapist: Same issue for MD, dosimetrist, etc
UNC
Lawrence B. Marks, MD
Simple interface
Safety in Radiation Therapy:
Recommendations (cont’d)
More FMEA and RCA
International reporting system
(SAFRON)
As Safe as Reasonably Achievable
(ASARA)
Return control at point of care
© WRH (March., 2011)
Safety in Radiation Therapy:
Recommendations (cont’d)
Time outs
Check lists, audits, SOPs
Profession-sponsored user groups
Safety champions
© WRH (March., 2011)
What can an outside audit
do for you?
28%
14%
How many of you were in 14-29% Fail group?
From Ibbott et al, IJROBP, 71(1)
29%
25%
Still not convinced?
ASTRO Six Point Action Plan
Creation of an anonymous national database for
event reporting
Enhance and accelerate the ASTRO/ACR Practice
Accreditation Program
Expand education and training programs to
include intensive focus on quality and safety
Develop tools for cancer patients to use in
discussions with radiation oncologists
Accelerate development of the IHE-RO program
Advocate for passage of the CARE act
© WRH (March., 2011)
Institute for the Assessment of
Medical Devices (IAMD)
AAPM/MIR
Technology Assessment
Database Management
Safety in Radiation Therapy
Error Reporting
© WRH (March., 2011)
National Council for Medical
Radiation Safety and Quality
Standards for cost-effectiveness,
quality, safety
Resource of knowledge and expertise
Promote creation of national registries
Guidelines for design, use and evaluation
of devices
Stakeholder education
© WRH (March., 2011)
Consequences of Harmful Medical
Error – University of Michigan
Errors disclosed to patients
Compensation offered when at fault
Decreased new legal claims
Reduced time to claim resolution
Lessened total liability costs
Kachalia et al
Annals Int Med 2010
Enhance Communication
Require respectful communication
Staff can halt disrespectful
communication
Time Out procedure endorsed
Written policies
SRT ACTION ITEMS – D. PAVORD
Improve Information
Handoffs
Procedures for vacation coverage
hand-offs
More info in treatment planning notes
Planning dosimetrist present at simulation
Physicians present at simulation if desired
Written policies
SRT ACTION ITEMS – D. PAVORD
Reduce Distractions
Improve work area ergonomics
Reduce work area traffic
Policies for therapists responsibilities
Limit persons at treatment console
Control interactions with therapists
Written policies
SRT ACTION ITEMS – D. PAVORD
Success Factors
Checklists/positive written communication on
any change with signed recognition (“how the
pilot and copilot communicate”)
Inspirational “management by walking around”
Abolition of the hierarchical nature of the XRT
department (Toyota Production System)
Time-outs: Any member of the team can stop
the assembly line and physician must be present
at new starts
“We all learn together” implementation of new
technology
Peer Review/Plan Review/Dept Review
Christopher Rose, MD
The Bottom Line Is:
SAFETY IS EVERYONE’S
RESPONSIBILITY